Debate on President's Address

1.30 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "that the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: 'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament'."

Sir, a week ago in this House, her Excellency Mdm Halimah Yacob, the President of the Republic of Singapore, delivered a speech on the priorities, policies and programmes of the Government for the remainder of the current term of office.

A plain review of the President’s speech and the 21 addenda issued by the respective Ministries and Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) since, reveals much more than that.

The plans go well beyond the remainder of the current term of this Government’s office. A good number of these plans, especially the ones dealing with the transformation of our defence capabilities, implementing our net zero ambition, developing our sustainable aviation and maritime hubs, transport systems and infrastructural capabilities and building an innovation economy will take decades to complete.

These plans are not just incremental in nature. They are imaginative and involve stretch targets. They are aimed at delivering decisive advantages to Singaporeans of the future. And I fully support them.

They are not at all easy to achieve. To materialise these plans, we require the strong support of fellow Singaporeans. We also need highly competent and dedicated leaders at all levels of government, including the political leadership, to execute these plans.

This is the defining characteristic of this People’s Action Party (PAP) Government.

It sees as its responsibility not just to take care of the current generation of Singaporeans for the near term. All our present-day advantages, hard won on the back of generations past are not considered, I quote, “a pinnacle of achievement, but as a base from which to scale new heights.”

It sees as its bounden duty to lay strong foundations for future generations of Singaporeans. Indeed, this principle of steward leadership is specifically embedded in the concluding paragraph of the President’s speech. She urges us to, I quote, "keep faith with future generations yet unborn and build a Singapore that thrives and endures for many years to come.”

The approach taken by the Government gives us in this House a unique opportunity.

It is my hope that hon Members who will be speaking during this debate will nail their colours to the mast and unequivocally state where they stand on the Government’s ambitious plans to build an enduring and thriving Singapore for now and years to come. By doing so, we will be able to explore building a consensus on these plans. This will include an agreement on funding the projects involved in the plans.

We will also be able to avoid the polarising effect of these long-term plans becoming political “footballs” of populist politicians. What we cannot afford to do as a small country with no natural resources is to adopt a “stop/start” or “feast and famine” approach in funding these important plans. Such an approach will quickly deplete our precious resources and will almost certainly spell doom for Singapore.

Importantly, as I will be alluding to shortly in my speech, it is my belief that building consensus in this House on such key plans will help us retain trust and unity which the President has identified to be essential for the future of Singapore.

I start with the issue of trust. The President stated in her speech that as we emerged from the pandemic, trust in the Government has strengthened. The President also emphasised that trust and unity are key to dealing with our priorities that includes securing our place in the world, growing our economy and refreshing our social compact.

Indeed, today, Singapore is in a fortunate position to be a high trust country. I looked at the Edelman Trust Barometer 2023 that was reported on CNA on 15 March 2023. Trust in our Government as an institution was reported to be relatively high compared to a vast number of other countries. But we are not among the top three. So, we should not behave as though we have arrived.

The results of the survey are consistent with anecdotal experience. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is the strong trust between our people and our Government that led to higher levels of vaccination, which in turn ensured that we kept mortality rates low and allowed us to reopen our borders and rebuild our lives much faster than in many other countries.

We also know, though, that the trust built today can be easily lost tomorrow. This is the impermanent nature of this “being”. Trust cannot be assumed; it has to be conscientiously built and nurtured.

The question I raise is how do we ensure that this strategic resource in the form of the reservoir of trust between our people and Government can be retained and even deepened as our nation navigates through an even more challenging socioeconomic environment?

There are many facets to this. I wish to draw focus on three areas: (a) the work of our Public Service officers; (b) the work of our political leaders in this House; and at the end of my speech (c) the Forward Singapore exercise conducted by our 4G Team.

The Public Service plays a vital role in the maintenance of trust between our people and the Government. It will continue to play an important role in future. Sir, we are indeed fortunate to have very committed and hardworking public service officers dedicated to their respective organisational missions, the rule of law, securing Singapore’s national interests and improving the lives of Singaporeans. In my respectful view, the strong trust relationship that we enjoy today is attributable in a significant part to the blood, sweat and tears of our officers in discharging their solemn duties.

To underscore this point, Sir, please allow me to share that, not infrequently, I receive detailed email replies from public officers, especially from the Housing and Development Board (HDB), to my queries on behalf of my constituents in the wee hours of morning! I cannot help feeling bad for them as they obviously sacrificed their personal time with their families to deal with official work. These officers have a strong sense of duty. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

What I feel distinguishes our Public Service from others is that in both design and implementation, our officers have foremost in their minds the ordinary Singapore Citizen. In their roles, they serve to strike a balance between achieving policy objectives, exemplifying values such as compassion and fairness, accountability for the use of national resources and the desire to do justice in each and every case.

Let me provide two examples by reference to my Meet-the-People Session (MPS) cases just on issues arising from Budget 2023 in the past few weeks.

Last month, I wrote an appeal on behalf of Mdm Zhu, who had just given birth to a baby girl, seeking the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift as announced in Budget 2023. Her baby, Qi Yue, was born at 5.00 pm on 13 February 2023. This was seven hours too early as the enhanced Baby Bonus cash gift, which would have been disbursed seven to 10 days after registration of the baby’s birth, was meant for babies born on or after 14 February 2023.

Mdm Zhu mentioned that her baby was born earlier than expected. This turns out to be a significant ground of appeal. In fact, the Baby Bonus Cash Gift policy was designed to allow babies due to be born on or after 14 February 2023 but were delivered earlier to get enhanced cash gifts too. By being flexible and not mechanically applying the timeline, we managed to achieve a better balance between the policy intent and the legitimate expectation of the ordinary citizen.

My reward was that I got a photo of Baby Qi Yue who happened to lift her head for the first time on the day that the Government allowed Mdm Zhu’s appeal! So, maybe she approved too.

I now turn to my next example. In Budget 2023, an announcement was made on the GST Voucher - Cash (Seniors’ Bonus). The policy intent was to help lower-income senior Singapore Citizens aged 55 and above cope with the cost of living. To gauge the financial circumstances of the senior, the Government uses the income earned in 2021 as a proxy. It has to be less than $34,000.

I had a situation where my resident earned more than $34,000 in 2021 but had a significant drop in income in 2022 owing to personal circumstances. Technically, my resident did not qualify. However, having regard to the policy intent of the bonus, the Ministry of Finance (MOF), in its reply to the petition issued by me on behalf of my resident, was prepared to be flexible. It sought documents supporting my resident’s claim that his income dropped significantly in 2022 before assessing whether it is prepared to provide him with the bonus on a discretionary basis.

Again, this is an enlightened approach and there is much to commend the Public Service for exercising flexibility to ensure that the policy intent is met.

Sir, I do not mean to advocate that all appeals are automatically granted, regardless of merit. Far from it. What I am drawing attention to is the process.

Our citizens must feel that they were listened to, their views considered seriously and they received proper explanations in a respectful manner on the outcomes even if they may disagree with them. This approach will, in my view, deepen this strategic resource of trust between our people and the Government as an institution.

Trust is the red thread running through the three points that the President made in her speech which made an impression on me.

First, the President highlighted the need for us, as a little red dot, to close ranks and stay united against global forces which will continue to try even harder to influence our domestic public opinion, so as to uphold Singapore’s vital interests.

Hon Members may recall the debate in this House on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill that was passed in 2021 to deal with hostile information campaigns by foreign powers. What I thought significant then was the united view expressed by hon Members on both sides of the aisle that Singapore politics is for Singaporeans. As responsible politicians, we must continue to close ranks and hold the line on core issues of national importance.

Second, the President highlighted that this unity as a nation will be important as we aim to secure economic opportunities amid a global economic slowdown to strengthen our position as a trusted and reliable business hub adding value to the world.

On this, it may be useful to emphasise one important takeaway from this year’s Budget debate. The raison d’etre behind our economic objectives was never economic growth for its own sake. Rather, growth is a means to achieve our broader objectives of advancing the well-being of every Singaporean.

We are already facing strong economic headwinds. The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) reported last Friday that our economy grew by only 0.1 % in the first quarter of 2023. This affects our prospects for growth this year with inflation still running high. Economists are predicting a technical recession.

The challenge facing us is clear. It seems to me what the President advocated in her speech about making sure Singapore is united in the context of a global economic slowdown has become all the more important now.

Third, the President emphasised the need to strengthen our social compact through programmes aimed at uplifting the disadvantaged and vulnerable and to keep us as one united people. The President identified this effort as a priority of the 4G team which is engaging Singaporeans through the Forward Singapore exercise to renew and update our social compact. I will talk more on the Forward Singapore exercise later in my speech.

The President also laid down the Government’s four key priorities to strengthen our social compact: (a) expanding opportunities for all, (b) strengthening social safety nets, (c) building a smart and liveable city and (d) deepening Singaporean’s sense of shared identity. In particular, the President stated that the Government will look into ensuring that advantages and privileges that may come with meritocracy does not become entrenched such that it weakens our society.

This point about the need to re-examine meritocracy was probably the most quoted point by my residents about the President’s speech whom I engaged with before drafting this speech. All of them expressed wholehearted agreement with the President. They agreed with the Government’s call to devote more resources to our children who start out with less. The support, however, is not just a question of fact, but a matter of degree too in order that we can make a tangible difference for these children.

The Government has already made substantial investments in our children from humble backgrounds, particularly at rental flats through programmes like the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) and the Community Link (ComLink).

One other area of potential support that the Government should consider is to address the housing environment of children living in overcrowded flats. This is a point that I have raised several times; the last being at the Ministry of National Development (MND)'s Committee of Supply (COS) 2023 debate during my speech on strengthening inclusivity in housing. In my speech, I said “each child is precious, and we must do our utmost to ensure that they grow up in more conducive housing environment”.

To be fair, based on statistics provided by HDB, there are not many such cases, but I have come across a few.

One possible way that can be considered is to provide for Social Service Agencies to run study centres for these children near rental flats that are open after school. In this way, our children will be able to study in a more conducive environment after school. In Bukit Batok, we have one example in the form of Tava by Talent Beacon, which is a non-profit organisation that sets up a study centre specially for children living in our rental flats, with the support of MND and HDB. Tava even provides study support and mentoring for these children.

At the same time, the President emphasised the need for a stronger network of stakeholders to help provide opportunities for all, participate in nation building and build unity. This is not just the Government’s responsibility. I agree and I believe that all hon Members feel the same way too. The question is how can we achieve this? How do we get more committed stakeholders?

During the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)'s COS debate this year, I highlighted that over the past five years between FY2016 and FY2020, the amount of tax-deductible donations per year remained more or less stable at $1 billion.

I said then that we need to do something more fundamental to move this needle. I suggested that successful organisations and individuals must feel more invested in the lives of the less fortunate. They must know that we are bound together in one common destiny. We sink or swim together.

This is clearly not an easy ask but we must quite clearly put in as much effort as possible to realise this objective. One area where stakeholders can help is to level the playing field when it comes to giving our children sporting experiences which are perceived to be within the exclusive domain of the well-to-do.

Let me make my point through an example. I am not a golfer, but I have certainly read about the amazing story of Mr Mardan Mahmat, who was Singapore’s number one golfer for more than 10 years.

His is a rags-to-riches story. He dropped out of primary school at the age of 12. A year later, he became a caddie at Jurong Country Club. As a teenager, Mardan frequently snuck into the club’s golf course when no one was looking and, by himself, learned how to play the game. He obviously had loads of talent because he managed to hone it by himself. Long story short, he became Singapore’s number one golfer.

Mardan’s story is exceptional. The reality now is that children from low- or middle-income backgrounds will find it difficult to gain access to more expensive sports, such as golf.

I do think though that something can be done through stakeholders with the appropriate resources to organise efforts to reach out to interested children, give them the sporting experience, suss out from among them the next Mardan Mahmat whom they can help to nurture to be a Singapore golf champion.

I am aware that many of these stakeholders already do wonderful charity work. I do hope though that they can consider this as a worthwhile extension of their efforts. The idea here is to provide children with the requisite talent and drive, regardless of their background, with opportunities to pursue their sporting dreams and become national athletes.

I now turn to the work of political leaders in this House.

The President stated in her speech that the trust between the political leadership and the people is a key strength that we must continue to nurture.

The President gave important guidance in this regard. She advised that our interactions as politicians be anchored on mutual respect and the shared goal of advancing the larger public interest. We should work through our differences, enlarge our common ground and draw strength from our diverse perspectives.

I fully agree. We, politicians, are at our best when we present our arguments in a measured way, recognise the inherent trade-offs in each of the policy suggestions that we make and present cogent arguments as to why we feel the balance should be struck one way or another.

What the President stated brought to my mind the speech that I made during the opening of the 14th Parliament when I advocated several proposals for Parliamentary reform of our evolving democracy.

I said then that building consensus in this House is an important outcome of our work here. I described consensus as a process of contestation, persuasion and resolution. Equally important is that such engagement will enable Singaporeans outside this House to have a better opportunity to understand the points of agreement, points of disagreement raised by their elected representatives and, through that, they will be able to better appreciate how these points impact on the ordinary lives of Singaporeans.

This is a form of accountability, too. Singapore has always preferred an undramatic approach to problem solving. This is our political heritage from the first generation of our political pioneers. Some of you may have recognised that I quoted a line from Dr Goh Keng Swee at the start of my speech – that we must consider our starting today merely as a base to build tomorrow.

Dr Goh was one of our deepest policy thinkers. He said, and I quote, “Deciding on policy and determining a line of action is different from engaging in a debate. Cabinet government is not a debating society or an academic seminar. These are intellectual exercises. Views are aired and, if done with style and elegance, the participants go home happy. In Government, you have to live with the consequences of your decision. If you make a mistake, the results are painful. In political life, there is no alibi for failure.”

I feel that we, in Parliament, should bear this in mind. When we deal with the real issues in this House, we know that they often matter to millions of lives. When we say that we are not “ideological” about something, it means that we are not wedded to whether the idea is from the left or the right, from the PAP or the Opposition, we are not wedded to repeating yesterday’s solutions tomorrow.

We should be disinterested in merely sounding good. On their own, they do not serve the interests of Singaporeans.

It is against this background that I argue the need for constructive politics in Parliamentary proceedings. Here, it may be useful to recount the debate that we had in this House on the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill.

Before the Second Reading of the Bill in this Parliament, there were concerns within certain quarters about the broad language of the Bill and perceived lack of judicial oversight. My hon friends across the aisle proposed amendments to the Bill to address, among others, these points. Hence, even before the hon Minister for Home Affairs delivered his Second Reading speech, lines were already drawn. This led to the hon Minister making a plea in this House to hon Members not to use Parliament as a forum to read out prepared speeches based on lines that were already drawn before he rendered his speech.

When I rose to speak on the Bill, I highlighted that whilst there were important differences between the views of the hon Members from both sides of the aisle, they were few, compared to the substantive areas of agreement between them. I do not remember a single journalist covering this point in his or her article.

I am not surprised. In my speech on building consensus in Parliament, I said that, and I quote “agreement, collegiality, friendliness, all these make for poor headlines”. Contestation sells, not consensus. As a result, the public perceived that there was a wide chasm between the hon Members of the governing and opposition parties on Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) than what was, in fact, the case.

For these reasons, I advocate an introspection within each of us in this House to build the common ground that the President referred to in her speech. Parliamentary proceedings should not be turned into arenas for “entertainment” that we regularly see in other countries. This will erode our people’s trust and confidence in their elected representatives. That will be very bad for Singapore.

Finally, and importantly, I turn to the Forward Singapore Exercise.

As we all know, the Forward Singapore Exercise conducted by our 4G leadership involves engaging thousands of Singaporeans from all walks of life. These engagements are aimed at identifying the values, priorities and policies needed to strengthen our social compact and to build a better and brighter Singapore.

I wish to make two points on the Forward Singapore Exercise. First, as we look forward, we should not forget the values that allowed us to make progress as a nation. I, therefore, feel that the President’s reminder that we should hold dear to our core values as Singaporeans is a timely one. This is the enduring legacy of our founding generation of leaders led by our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

At the same time – and this my second point – I feel that it is important for the Forward Singapore Exercise to adequately capture the idealism of our youths so that they will be able to identify with and support our vision for the future. After all, they have the biggest stake in our plans for the future.

A few weeks ago, during a house visit, I met my resident, Mr Sherman Chua, aged 21. He is working with a Silicon Valley company in the artificial intelligence (AI) space.

As we all know, this space is simply “exploding” at the moment with the advent of ChatGPT and so on. He told me that as a result of his exposure to this space, he is convinced that life as we know it will change a lot through imminent and rapid adoption of AI. He expressed to me his concern that Singapore is not investing enough resources to get ahead in this area. In his view, if nothing is done in this space within the next five years, Singapore may be passed over and runs the risk of becoming a laggard. I invited him to drop me an email containing his views and I will link him up with the relevant pillar leads in the Forward Singapore Exercise.

I am sure there are other young people like Sherman in our communities. It will serve the 4G Team well to engage such people so that their views on the shared vision for the future are taken onboard. I look forward to receiving the 4G Team’s report on the Forward Singapore Exercise that is expected to be issued in the second half of this year.

Sir, let me conclude. If we are to consider Singapore as a base to scale and not a pinnacle on which we rest, we must recognise that the nature of the electorate is changing. It has been changing since World War Two ended – a generation that has never known war, communalism, death by gunshot or violence, days of hunger, or nights of terror.

Today, a new generation is emerging, standing taller and brighter than the ones before. Their education is deeper, their social support tighter and with more social spending per person than ever before in our history. In health, education, housing and transport, we are doing much more to provide all Singaporeans with better services and to support the more vulnerable groups.

As a result, we have, today, a generation that has never experienced hardship to the same degree and scale of the past. From the start of their working life, they understand that they can ask for work-life balance and mental wellness days, not as entitlements but as a fact of Singaporean life. These are the natural fruits of 60 years of careful tending. Our people today would naturally have different responses to Government policies than those of the past.

Human response is not an artifice. This word “lived experience” is used quite a lot today. Some may feel uncomfortable at how it elevates subjective experience to a policy truth on which we often build an edifice of rights and allocations. The fact remains that people’s psyche will change and, as they do, their government must change and to a degree and at a speed unprecedented. We cannot be an analogue government in a digital world, if we are to keep faith with our fellow Singaporeans.

All this is not to say that Singaporeans are less tough today than we were in the past or that we rise any slower to a challenge. We are a people new to pandemics and the world has not seen the scale and intensity of COVID-19. But Singapore overcame. History is a good teacher but, like PSLE mathematics, we do not need to have worked out the same sum before to get the right answer in a new one.

We are a different people today and require a new style and substance in our policies. Two things which guided our leaders after the war must not change. First, to achieve prosperity so as to ensure happiness and peace for our people; and second, to ensure that Singapore continues to survive as an independent nation.

The President’s speech, like those of almost all Presidents before her, speaks of the need to ensure that Singapore “endures for many years to come”. No large country suffers from this same paranoia. But this is the nature of small states – to be short-lived. We are either annexed or merged and, in fact, we ourselves thought this at the start.

There is nothing external to ourselves, no partners or allies that will ensure the survival of this improbable nation. We must, therefore, trust one another, trust our leaders and trust our shared identity so as to build a brighter future together. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah Kian Peng.

2.00 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has asked us to broaden the way we conceive of "merit", which is another way of saying "who deserves what" in terms of opportunity and access to finite resources.

Today, it has become fashionable to hammer this word "meritocracy", as if those of us who use it do not know it was originally coined as criticism. Michael Young, the British sociologist, in 1958, argued that a system that rewarded merit defined as "IQ plus effort" is as flawed as that one rewarding accidents of birth, because having cognitive ability is as much a matter of genetic lottery.

This is true, except we may prefer to adopt this system, compensate for its shortcomings rather than adopt the alternatives which are random assignment, other criteria such as money, power or birth.

Let me give you the Singaporean rendering of meritocracy which should be seen against our general governance model.

In 1971, then-Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew gave a famous speech about 300 people in a jumbo jet. Most of us remember that speech for the graphic image of the jet crashing and a country bereft of leadership. But the main idea for me is this, how did these people get on the plane?

Mr Lee said at the time, and I quote, "The main burden of present planning and implementation rests on the shoulders of some 300 key persons." He goes on to say, "Outstanding men in civil service, the Police, the armed forces, chairmen of statutory boards and their top administrators." And then, he goes on to say, "These people come from poor and middle-class homes. They come from different language schools. Singapore is a meritocracy. And these men have risen to the top by their own merit, hard work and high performance. Together they are a closely knit and co-ordinated hard core. If all the 300 were to crash in one jumbo jet, then Singapore will disintegrate. That shows how small the base is for our leadership."

This idea that a man comes into leadership, or indeed, into any position of opportunity, by what he can do, how hard he has worked, the stuff he himself is made of, not who his father was, who his friends are, or how much money he has. This idea that one looks at a man and not his pedigree is as old as Plato's Republic and the Chinese Imperial Examinations. In Singapore, this must remain the only way to get on that jet.

The fly in this ointment, of course, is that the two are not unrelated. How much a man is, determines how many advantages his son or daughter has, who this son marries, and in turn, the kinds of privilege he confers on his own offsprings. And so on unto generations to come.

In Singapore, there are people who are born into HDB rental blocks that their parents live in, as well as those who inherit good class bungalows (GCBs) that their parents may themselves inherit. The Government can make sure that both have a roof over their heads, they have vaccinations in the clinics, that the sons of the rich serve alongside those of the poor in National Service, but there is no way that the first can afford everything that the second does.

We talk often of income inequality and that is indeed an issue. But what I want today to speak about is wealth, because that is an even more glaring offence to the meritocratic ideal. There are 2,700 billionaires in the world – their money comes, not only from their income from work but also through their ownership of capital – property, stocks and the businesses that they owned.

We could reset the game after each round – tax bequests heavily so as to erode the advantages of inherited wealth – but there are two constraints on this: the first is to recognise the ancient instinct which urges us to strive so as to be able to leave something for our family as our legacy; the second is a practical benchmark – that Singapore must set tax regimes for the rich, with an eye on the rates in the rest of the world, rather than merely responding to local pressures.

Having said this, I do think that we can tax the rich further, especially in specific expenditures such as, super cars. I asked this in my Budget debate speech and I ask the Finance Minister, at some point again, to consider a separate category of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) for super cars costing over a million dollars. The billionaires should compete among themselves so as not to allow the state to benefit from their preferences for luxury goods. The same goes for the tax for GCBs, country club transfer fees and so on.

Net worth is not net income, and it is the first which may be a stronger force for fracture. My second point on inherited wealth is to ask for some data. The data on the Gini coefficient is clear. After adjusting for Government transfers and taxes, the Gini coefficient fell from 0.437 in 2021 to 0.378 in 2022, the second lowest on record. It is a sign that Government transfers are a good way to reduce income inequalities.

But the Gini coefficient includes only wage income. It does not take into account capital income which is likely to be more uneven in distribution. I do not know what the wealth distribution is in Singapore, but the Government may consider releasing some data so as to help public discussion.

I am not asking for a segregation of the super-rich in terms of everyday life, merely in tax regimes, as a matter of fairness. They are, of course, still free to enjoy $4 or $5 wanton mee at one of my coffeeshops at Serangoon Central. We need to keep common spaces open because these are, after all, financed by tax dollars.

The second piece of the puzzle is, therefore, the redistributive function of the state. In order to keep us from fracturing along the lines of inherited wealth, we must also level the playing field for those who are not unto the manner born. In health, education and housing, as well as some elements of transport and financial planning, we must create a minimum standard of living for all Singaporeans.

I would like to suggest one radical idea: the top 40% of each cohort already have access to state resources in the form of higher education. The budget of our top two universities here run to billions of dollars a year, with high resources inside the classrooms, the best labs, professors; and outside: with overseas travel, mental health and wellness and a close network of mentors.

What about the rest of the other 60%? Can we think of some educational spending or resourcing for the 60%? Whether in terms of skills, continuous training, micro-credentials, or even the sort of non-academic opportunities, including sports, which Mr Murali has talked about, that Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) affords to their students? This latter could include opportunities in the arts, sports as well as access to community service and overseas exposure.

Our SkillsFuture Credit framework that we have is good, but I think it should be further institutionalised with additional resources targeted for this 60% group. Singapore would then truly be a home which provides higher and lifelong education for all.

Five years ago, in 2018, also in response to the President's Address then, I had said that we must make sure that a boy born to poor parents must have more from the state than one born from the rich. This aggressive redistribution, which is a hallmark of Singapore's socialism, must become even stronger and not just in fiscal policy, but in public censure of any pretence to social class.

In this, I refer to the most recent incident where the resident of a condominium mocked, humiliated and ridiculed a security guard for clamping the wheels of his car. His utterance – flaunting his wealth, his contempt for the guard is abhorrent and has no place in Singapore. There are some things that money cannot buy and in Singapore, this includes the price of insult and derogation of any man doing an honest job.

We have in 60 years indeed, gone from mudflats to metropolis and may now have a different level of wealth and income but we must not stand for those who think money buys access to a different class.

In our schools, in our army camps, in this House of Parliament, we stand or fall as one.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been a Member of this House since 2006 and it has been a true privilege to stand alongside my colleagues of all political colours. Our jumbo jet may be a lot bigger today, but entry is still by merit and there is still just one class.

Today, as in 1971, we are still flying the same flag, with the same five stars: democracy, progress, peace, justice and equality. Today, the success of Singapore lies not within the few in a jet, but in the multitude of ideas in many people who live and work on this island.

In 1971, Mr Lee was speaking of unity and the need for all Singaporeans to feel that we are, at the root of our identity, one people. At that time, his fight was to avoid being torn under and along racial lines.

At that time, a Malay newspaper had been advocating "bumiputera" policies. One Chinese newspaper, on the other hand, has been playing up pro-Chinese Communist news. The English press at the time had been pushing for "more permissiveness in sex and drugs and worked up a campaign against National Service."

In 1971, the way towards unity was to build common ground in a common language and culture, and a stake in a prospering country.

Today, we may all speak a common language, our schools all teach in English and the power of different language newspapers may have weakened. But we still face provocations, falsehoods, dissension sown and manufactured, and we still face a world who has no interest in the success of Singapore.

Aside from the fault lines I spoke of earlier, there are other challenges: foreign and other malign influences through social media, the rise of a victimhood culture where each special group stand on its rights and sees "micro aggressions", where subjective feeling and "lived experiences" take priority over objective truths and rational discourse.

And as Singapore ages, the demands for state resources for older Singaporeans will rise, we can expect rising resentment among the young. In 2017, Greece and Italy spent around 15.5% of GDP on public pensions; Austria, France and Portugal spend around 13% to 14% of GDP. The entire Singapore budget is only about 18% today. So, this is a serious issue which we must tackle.

The challenges today are as numerous as ever. It seems it is the fate of a small nation, to always strive lest we fall. This can exhaust and frighten, or it can inspire and energise. The choice is ours, all of us who have chosen to fly this jet together. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.14 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Imagine for a moment, if you will, being a teenager again. The awkward parties, the search for self, the facial breakouts. But one of the feelings that many of us will find inextricably linked to our adolescent years is one of exclusion. Now imagine the same feeling, only that you are now supposed to be a fully functioning, fully participating adult in society.

Mr Speaker, Singaporean incomes present themselves as somewhat of an enigma.

By some measures, we are among the richest countries in the world. Measured in terms of a common currency, Singapore comes in at fifth in 2022, ahead of Qatar and the United States (US), and just shy of Switzerland. When adjusted for actual purchasing power, we climb even higher; to third, just behind Ireland and Luxembourg, two European countries often used as tax shelters.

But amid this wealth, we also see sharply dissonant scenes of the elderly picking up cardboard, selling tissue packs, or clearing plates at hawker centers, of an underclass of workers who live in dingy, overcrowded rental flats and rely on food handouts, of people who quip that in Singapore, you can be poor, or you can be sick, or you can die, but you cannot stop working.

In her address last week, Mdm Halimah urged us to improve our social compact and strengthen our social safety net, emphasising how, I quote, "the fruits of progress must be shared fairly."

I support the President's sentiment and the Motion, but in this speech, I will speak more about the apparent economic success declared by the headline numbers versus the economic precarity felt by a large group of Singaporeans. I will go on to discuss hard living in Singapore, especially after the pandemic, before concluding with proposals that can help us hopefully improve the circumstances of those who are struggling the most.

Living in Singapore is not cheap. Look around. The market price of a 4-room HDB flat – all 970 square feet of it – ranges from $460,000 in Jurong East to a whopping $860,000 in Queenstown. Sengkang, the district I represent, recently saw a flat change hands for close to $1 million dollars. And island wide, close to a dozen 4-room flats sold for more than $1 million-dollar mark in the first quarter. Observers expect this trend to persist.

The cost of a new Japanese sedan, like the Honda Civic that I drive, is $180,000, around five times the price of what it goes for in other advanced economies. Put another way, buying a car would cost close to three years' salary of a typical middle-income individual here, compared to around 14 months in the US.

Our decades-old aspiration toward Swiss standards of living has, alas, also brought with it Swiss-style prices. Reports routinely place Singapore, tied with New York, as the most expensive city to live in in the world. While this Government has argued that such metrics do not reflect the typical experience of a Singaporean household who consume different things and have access to taxpayer-funded grants and subsidies for big-ticket items like purchasing an HDB flat, the sting is that many of these things the rest of the world deem affordable is, for us, not.

That said, by some measures, Singapore is eminently affordable, at least when compared to other advanced economies. Delicious hawker meals, which we rightly celebrate as a part of our natural, intangible heritage, can be had for a few dollars, plus a dollar more if you happen to live in Sengkang.

Our public transportation system is excellent and many of us commute on it on a day-to-day basis by paying relatively affordable, albeit rising, fares. Most of us are able to send our kids to school without the need to resort to expensive private schooling that would break the bank.

Whence the discrepancy? It stems from the fact that for those among us that do not own or have access to capital, life is exceedingly hard. It is one of working long hours but barely getting by, of living out each day with little hope for the future, of seeing the enormous prosperity that our country has achieved but feeling that, somehow, this has mostly passed you by.

But for those of us who own assets like stocks and bonds, who run or inherited a business, or were fortunate enough to get on the housing ladder early on, it is possible to enjoy the fruits of this wealth and rely on high-asset prices to cushion the effects of high prices of goods and services.

Moreover, the challenges of the poor would likely have been compounded by the pandemic. Across the globe, economically vulnerable households have tended to fare poorly as a result of the COVID-19 shock. Detailed surveys from economies, both Western and Eastern, suggest lower-income groups experienced greater job market losses. In Singapore, two separate studies by DBS on account balances revealed that close to half of lower-income groups suffered significant falls in income, with around half within that group experiencing drops of more than 50% and had less than a month of emergency funds available.

This may seem especially unfair, since the less well-off were often our essential workers and had to continue on in the frontlines, even as the rest of us sheltered comfortably at home. Unfortunately, the poor did not find much relief after the pandemic. Inflation hit hard, reaching peaks of 7.5% in August and September last year. While this has come down, inflation, in excess of 6%, continues to eat away at incomes.

A more recent survey by DBS found that wage increases have failed to keep up with inflation and for the lowest income group, expenses have grown close to five-and-a-half times faster than their salaries. Even by the Government's own statistics, household real wages decreased in 2020 and 2021, and the small increase last year does not fully make up for the losses.

In contrast, there are those of us who have been lucky enough to have sufficient savings to invest and, in some cases, have been able to tap on higher interest rates offered by the market to shore up our finances. But such discrepancies only serve to further exacerbate the discrepancy between the wealthy and the rest.

Researchers who have devoted their lives to studying poverty tend to believe that its causes may be broadly defined into two groups. The first argues that low incomes constrain the ability of the poor to save, eat well and pursue educational opportunities. Since poverty causes poverty, the solution is to offer one-off transfers that help the poor extricate themselves from their plight. A second group believes that the poor are limited by their God-given abilities, talents or motivation, and they will always be among us and the solution is to provide small, but repeated, income support.

I believe that there is merit to both these perspectives on poverty. Inasmuch as we want to offer opportunities for those of us to escape the poverty trap, the basis of most of the Government's anti-poverty policies, there are those that happen to be endowed with less potential, stricken by physical or mental disability, or who face persistent discrimination, and hence, require the support of society-at-large. And in a rich, advanced economy, I believe that doing so is the correct and compassionate thing to do.

Regardless of which school of thought one subscribes to, the fact remains that if we are to help the poor, we must know who they are. But in Singapore, we have yet to establish an official poverty line. This is both puzzling and exasperating. We take pride in ourselves as people who are quantitatively sophisticated and highly efficient; we make and meet KPIs. Targeting the poor is impossible, or at least, imperfect, without an official, transparent benchmark.

We have, instead, a confusing mishmash of thresholds that have been applied by different agencies at different times. We sometimes see reports for the lowest quartile, or quintile, being treated as the poor, or simply the halving of median household incomes. The HDB income threshold for rental happens to be $1,500, while the ComCare threshold is closer to $1,900. The Department of Statistics instead pegs the Average Household Expenditure on Basic Needs at $1,250, albeit this low figure was from two surveys ago and the calculation does not seem to have been updated.

Other unofficial lines, based on ensuring social inclusion or allowing for relative, not just absolute, poverty would suggest higher amounts. These range from $2,500, to as much as $6,400. One may quibble with these numbers and this Government has certainly done so, by arguing that the high-end estimates overstate what are needs versus wants in the household.

A poverty line is defined as the lowest income level that would be deemed adequate in a given country. This leaves a tremendous amount of latitude in terms of what is "adequate". What may be regarded as an absolute minimum necessary to purchase goods and services for basic needs in a poor country may be shockingly low, when set against expectations of needs in a rich country. Indeed, there is clear evidence that as countries get richer, the value of what is conventionally regarded as a basic need changes.

And the fact is, we are no longer a developing country. The sort of things that we need to be as a full participant in Singaporean society has changed. Smartphones may seem like an unnecessary perk to some, but without one, many basic Government services become increasingly difficult to access. A holiday may strike others as a luxury, but for large families cooped up in tiny apartments, a brief getaway to Malaysia offers an important respite that can ensure the mental health of parents.

And money spent on "ang pows" and gifts and celebrations are not just frivolous spending; they represent rites of passage and acts of reciprocity that speak to a moral economy and societal norm, which cannot be reduced to dollars and cents.

It is, in my view, an insult to suggest to a family that the supplemental tuition that their struggling kids need to stay afloat in our overcrowded classrooms is not sufficiently "basic." Or that spending on deodorant in our hot and humid climate, particularly before an interview or a big date, is truly "discretionary".

Part of the problem is a disconnect between what this Government has claimed to be basic, versus what Singaporeans themselves perceive as necessary for human flourishing. But if we can all agree that a good life includes opportunities to education and decent healthcare, employment with work-life balance and a sense of inclusion when one participates in social, cultural and religious activities, then why do we not extend these to the most economically vulnerable in our midst? Life is not just about making it day-to-day, but about thriving, as all humans, poor or not, have aspirations.

It is time for an official poverty line. This line should be established based on components that go beyond just the crude, "basic" needs of housing, food and clothing. Set up a committee, with representatives, from not just MSF, but also leaders from civil society and experts from academia, to figure out what this should be. Then, peg all thresholds for Government assistance, especially ComCare, to this line or higher, but never lower. The Local Qualifying Salary, effectively our minimum wage for Singaporeans should likewise be tied to this line.

Even after we have established a new threshold for ComCare, we need to recognise that the system can stand to be refined. At this year's COS debate, I suggested that the ComCare approval process can be intrusive, onerous and demeaning. While I agree with the general principle of being responsible with public monies, we should not become overzealous in the opposite direction.

It is tempting to design a public welfare system that attempts to sieve out only those that we deem "worthy" of support. So-called "welfare kings or queens" should be excluded as such individuals undeniably exist. We may even have some "regulars" in our Meet-the-People Sessions, but they are few and far between.

Most of my residents possess a lot of self respect and feel uncomfortable seeking help from the state, even when they are going through a tough situation not of their own making. A system that is stingy about financial assistance to the eight or nine folks that just want a little bit of support in a particularly trying time, just to deny the one or two abusers, strikes me as excessive and especially since all that effort translates only to a modest payout.

Furthermore, support is often granted for an unbearably short time – three to six months in the first instance. With precious few exceptions, how can someone's lot improve in just three months? Even when we make appeals and reappeals to agencies, such as the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA), we are often told that we should wait for six months before trying again, since life circumstances are unlikely to change much in the interim. And even if they did, providing some additional months of support would help those who are in need partially fill up the hole that they find themselves in.

As my hon friend Mr Leon Perera has argued in this House, poverty imposes a non-trivial "bandwidth tax": the cognitive burden of poverty, in and of itself. Being in dire financial straits not only imposes mental stress as one searches for job opportunities; it can affect our handling of all-important job interviews, or our performance in a job during the probation period. It steals mental resources that are better spent on improving our situation or providing care for our dependants. It even reduces the little pleasure we receive from what we are able to consume.

Think back on the last time when you had a tight budget before your next paycheck came in and how you had to worry about whether you could make the rent or the mortgage, pay for your meals next week or clear bills that would keep the lights on. Play out that exercise every single day and week, and you will sense what it is like to be poor. Layer on that, the need to "prove" that you are indeed poor every few months to a Social Service Office (SSO) officer, who has the power to snatch away the fragile lifeline that you have.

We can reduce the need for such burdensome and intrusive pre-approval scrutiny by obtaining many documents directly from our public and semi-public agencies, such as rental or utilities. We can deploy conditional cash transfers (CCTs) in exchange for desired behaviour, such as supplementary educational expenses or preventative healthcare spending, and use the fulfilment of the condition as sufficient evidence to qualify for support.

We could set the default that automatically qualifies all Singaporeans in rental flats for an extended period in the Fresh Start home ownership programme, as recently suggested by a local social sector leader.

The Government might argue that beyond ComCare, there is the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), our other key anti-poverty programme, that is also aligned with incentives. But, as I suggested before, not everyone who is poor is able to work and even when they can, circumstances might constrain how much they can.

The WIS is based on an earned income tax credit (EITC) which, in turn, is a refinement of the negative income tax. Without going into technical details, it is sufficient to note that our scheme tends to be viewed more as a grudgingly offered financial supplement, conditional on one putting in sufficient work hours, rather than a genuine anti-poverty tool aimed at helping provide additional support to our low-income earners.

This is in part because the amounts offered by the WIS are paltry, majority of which is not even accessible for meeting daily needs, since most of it goes straight to the Central Provident Fund (CPF). Even with the most recent revision, topped-up amounts come to $350 a month at best, and can be as little as half that.

While any additional help is undoubtedly welcome, I have had many residents share that the support hardly makes a dent in high cost Singapore. This is exacerbated by our low-income thresholds – $3,000 a year – before one is disqualified. In contrast, the maximum income for the US programme is closer to twice that.

The $500 minimum monthly income requirement introduced last year may also inadvertently exclude workers who are most in need of the flexibility afforded by our part-time employment. While the ostensible reason for the requirement is to exclude some of the more well-off families from benefiting from the programme, it seems like the more tried and tested tool – total household or spousal income or the annual value (AV) of one's residential property – would be sufficient to rule out the non-poor.

Indeed, while we are reassured that those who are already on ComCare would automatically receive Workfare, I am sure that we are aware of many poor families, who for various reasons, are not on ComCare – perhaps because of the onerous documentary criteria I mentioned earlier or if they happen to have an estranged child who is also a high-income earner.

Were these individuals to work only limited hours, perhaps due to health or age, the limited additional support Workfare promises would nevertheless not be available to them.

Workfare also seems to be blind to the differential needs of parents with children. The WIS, to put it bluntly, is independent of dependants. This is in contrast to the approach in other jurisdictions where support is significantly higher if the household has one or more children. This approach makes absolute sense, since parents not only have more dependants to support, they also need to make arrangements for childcare were they to enter into the workforce formally.

Finally, Sir, it is worth pointing out that there are age conditions associated with the WIS, where those who are younger receive less support than the elderly. But this is curious. Why would the youthful poor necessarily need less money than the elderly?

This becomes more odd when —

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim, you have half a minute left.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: — how Silver Support is available only to those aged 65 and above.

Mr Speaker, we have been remarkably recalcitrant in our willingness to support our poor. We can do more, much more – if we want to truly call ourselves a first-world nation. Indeed, we surely must.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair.

2.34 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Singapore’s Independence was a product of the post-war decolonialisation wave, that started in the late 1940s with the independence of India. That was also the period that saw the birth of the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and, in later years, the World Trade Organization (WTO).

These organisations formed the backbone of the modern multilateral world we live in. Common values recognised in international law included the recognition of the sovereignty of nations and the prohibition against the use of force except in self defence.

With the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO, trade among nations grew and the world became more interconnected. This was a backdrop that was conducive to Singapore’s growth as a small nation since the rule of law is especially important for protecting the small and the vulnerable.

The last few years have seen an unprecedented retreat from multilateralism. Russia’s attack on Ukraine was a breach of the UN Charter and the prohibition against the use of force. However, Russia, through its predecessor state, the USSR, is also a charter member of the UN with a veto in the security council. The breach of the UN Charter by a charter member is worrying for the rule of law and it is important for the rest of the world to take a firm stand on this if we intend to maintain the rule of law.

Two of the biggest beneficiaries of the liberalisation of trade following GATT and the WTO are the US and China. They are now the two biggest economies in the world. Yet, the rivalry between the two is now threatening the system on which both prospered. Other countries are also taking their cue from the superpowers, and we see increasing calls for protectionism from different countries. In the long run, this is likely to create more silos and a divided world.

The multilateral system is not dead, but I think it is important for those that believe in its importance to continue to speak up for it and help bring in those who are sceptical. The source of the scepticism is that free trade has sometimes exaggerated the differences between the rich and the poor in different countries. As jobs and roles move to different countries, there will inevitably be winners and losers at home. For those who believe in multilateralism, I think it is important for us to acknowledge some of these side effects and then have domestic policies that correct for this.

I think the multilateral system has benefits for everyone, not least of which is greater security. And in this testing time, we need to win back as many of the sceptics as we can.

Singapore itself has not been immune to some of these effects and this leads me to the second area I wish to address in my speech. The President’s Address acknowledged the importance of Singapore continuing to grow, but that these opportunities must be shared equitably.

I believe this is fundamental to preserving our society where everyone has opportunities.

Singapore’s growth over the years has been remarkable and, as we moved from third world to first, the living standards of almost all our people improved dramatically. However, now that we are a developed country and our GDP per capita is among the highest in the world, continuing to be a growing high-income country is more difficult. We need to find better, higher-paying jobs for our citizens.

At the same time, with higher incomes all round, the cost of living is generally higher as higher incomes for citizens translates into higher costs for wages for businesses and higher rentals as people pay more and compete for the real estate. Additionally, global inflationary pressures and higher interest rates also add to pressures in the cost of living for Singaporeans.

Against this backdrop, I think the measures in the President’s Address to ensure that Singaporeans continue to have opportunities to train and get employment throughout their working lives is vital. I would also suggest that this be coupled with income support while people undergo training. This should be enough to tide them over temporary rough patches.

Going to an earlier stage, I think it is important for our schools to remain the great leveller for education. In the past, children would attend school and learn things like the alphabet from there. I recall entering Primary 1 without any knowledge of how to read or write Tamil, but it was still possible to learn from scratch.

Now, with most children having preschool education, the entry benchmark has risen and basic literacy and numeracy is required for children attending Primary 1, failing which, more may fall behind. This means those who miss preschool, who are predominantly from lower-income families, will start off on the back foot. It is therefore even more important to ensure that preschool is attended by all children and either make this compulsory or have strong measures in place to encourage universal attendance.

The next matter, which I think has been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers, is the proliferation of tuition, even after children attend school. Parents across all income groups try their best to supplement what their children learn in school with tuition. In HDB heartland malls, an increasingly larger footprint is being used for such services.

While such services are helpful for children, there is a concern by parents who cannot afford such services that their children may lose out. I have some parents who come to MPS to seek assistance when they are going through a rough patch and they often indicate their children’s tuition expenses are part of their normal monthly expenditures. Of course, MSF rarely gives financial assistance to cope with such expenses.

There are other self-help groups that come in to provide support for this but it will be good if we can develop a system that places less emphasis on tuition. Education in our schools is highly affordable and of a very high quality. It is important that parents believe such education is adequate for their children and that children who are unable to attend or afford tuition and enrichment classes do not get left behind. This is an important part of keeping our playing field open for children of all backgrounds to thrive.

(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The reopening of Parliament this time coincides with the Tamil Language Festival. This year there are 42 events being organised by a range of different organisations. This event receives strong but quiet support from the Government, which through the Tamil Language Council, provides grants for the organisation of events at this festival.

I am grateful to the Government for its strong support for the Tamil language in Singapore. The Tamil speaking community makes up around 5% of our population and it is one of Singapore’s official languages. The Government supports the language in many ways.

The Tamil Language Council supports the Tamil Language Festival.

Another committee, the Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee, otherwise known as TLLPC – which I have chaired for several years – offers support for the learning of Tamil outside of classrooms. The TLLPC team organises events and supports activities throughout the year to make the use and learning of Tamil language fun.

Grants are also given for the production of local Tamil content by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) under its Public Service Broadcast Programme and this allows for the creation of good quality local content, which is monitored by the Indian Programme Advisory Committee.

This support is commendable and has helped the Tamil language remain a vibrant language in Singapore.

Tamil is now also widely offered across more schools. When I was in preschool in the 1980s, it would have been very difficult to find preschools offering Tamil as a second language. When my father was in primary school in the 1950s, he started studying Tamil in Primary 1, but had to drop it in Primary 3 when his teacher passed away and no replacement could be found. He then had to switch to the Malay language. We have come a long way from those days, with Tamil now available across many preschools and government schools.

One issue that has arisen now though is the shortage of Tamil teachers in schools. As the number of Tamil students are small, there are fewer Tamil teachers than for other Mother Tongue languages. However, even though the number of children is small, the Tamil children in schools still have a variety of different needs, including children across different age groups and with different subject-based banding.

Yet, because of the shortage of teachers, I understand some schools have been forced to combine Tamil classes with children in different subject-based bands coming together for the same class. This makes common teaching difficult. It will be helpful to know if the Ministry of Education (MOE) has any plans to deal with this issue. This may include plans on how we may develop a larger pipeline of Tamil teachers for our Government schools and preschools.

The learning of Tamil in Singapore has come a long way, with quiet support from the Government going a long way. I am grateful for this support and hope it will continue.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

2.45 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, in her address to Parliament, the President called for a “broader and more open meritocracy that works well for all Singaporeans”. A lynchpin of our system of meritocracy is our education system, which is the subject of my speech today.

Singapore’s education system has gone through several changes over the years, from the introduction of streaming in 1981, to the introduction of Subject-based Banding (SBB) in 2014, to the roll out of Full SBB starting in 2020. Yet, even with these changes, one major feature of our education system remains central – examinations.

As a parent of two children who have gone through PSLE and are now in secondary school, I am rather familiar with both the joy and – more often – the frustration that parents go through when helping their children through major national examinations.

Tutoring my own children has also provided me insights into the academic curriculum and its continued focus on examinations. I remember spending an inordinate amount of time working with my children through assessment books and past examination papers. I would often have to peek at the answer sheets behind, so I could teach them how to answer science questions with just the right number of points while putting up with taunts from my own offspring, which went along the lines of, “See, you also don’t know!”

I would also have to repeatedly drill my children on mathematics problem sums. To get a good pass in Singapore’s examinations, students need to not only answer questions correctly, but also quickly, or risk the “horror” of having many unanswered questions at the end of the paper, due to examination time limits.

Many mid-year examinations have been done away with, but these have been replaced with weighted assessments which occur throughout the school year. The major national examinations like the PSLE, "N", "O" and "A" levels always loom just around the corner. Perform poorly in any of these examinations and the students will find their future educational options narrowed down or delayed – a prospect that many students and parents fear, no matter what the Government says about the many pathways to success.

There are positive effects of examinations. They can incentivise teachers to cover their subjects more thoroughly, a skill which our local educators excel in. Examinations motivate students to work harder to gain a sense of accomplishment.

However, there are also negative effects of examinations. They can motivate students to aim for test mastery instead of subject mastery. Tests encourage teachers to narrow the curriculum and lose instructional time, which could lead to “teaching to the test”.

Examinations, typically, assess only certain aspects of a learner's knowledge, potentially overlooking other aspects of their education. Examination outcomes may not be definitive since they are solely based on a student's performance on the examination day. If a student is unwell or performs poorly under stress, it could adversely affect their examination results and their scores may not be an accurate reflection of their grasp of the subject matter. If the student fails to achieve their desired examination results, they will have to settle for courses of study in secondary schools or tertiary institutions that they may not be so inclined towards.

National examinations induce tremendous amounts of stress on students, as they determine their future educational pathways and, consequently, their future careers and earning potential. While it can be argued that it is good for young people to learn to cope with stress, when stress becomes toxic, it can have negative effects on learning and knowledge retention and, in extreme situations, could become chronic.

By channelling their energies into preparing for examinations, students may forgo opportunities to experience the joy of learning and achieving mastery in what really is important for life.

The streaming approach puts students through a standardised test like the PSLE, sorted them into good, average and weak students, and put them on different education streams in secondary schools with different subject combinations based on their test scores. The new Subject-based Banding approach also sorts students into good, average and weak students for each subject, and channels them into subject combinations based on their assessed ability in each subject.

While subject-based banding is less rigid than streaming, it is still based on the same principle. A student has to meet a specific test score in order to study the subjects they are interested in.

The ostensible reason for implementing this sorting mechanism is to provide some assurance that the student can cope with the rigours of that subject or subject level before being allowed to take it. This is probably why through-train programmes are currently available mainly to an elite few students who qualify for the Integrated Programme by virtue of their stellar performance in the PSLE. There is little risk that these students will become early dropouts of school.

In contrast, the Workers’ Party has proposed a 10-year through-train programme from Primary 1 to Secondary 4 as an option for parents who want their child to bypass the PSLE. Our proposed through-train programme gives students 10 years to prepare for their first major examination at Secondary 4, allowing them to learn at a pace suited for them while developing other areas of interest. The 10-year through-train programme will pair up existing primary and secondary schools and complement, not replace, the non-through-train tracks in these schools. My hon friend, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, elaborated on this proposal in detail during the COS debate earlier this year.

We need to make our education system less of a sorting mechanism for identifying students’ abilities and more of a launchpad for students to discover their strengths and interests and develop deep skills in their areas of interest.

Students should not be channelled away from their interests just because they did not obtain a certain cut-off point in their examinations. There might be concerns that some so-called “kiasu parents” will push their children to take subjects that are far beyond their abilities. However, I believe that most Singaporean students and their parents are keenly aware of their own limitations and will not bite off more than they can chew. After all, if a student takes a subject at too challenging a level, they will have difficulty scoring the much coveted "A1"s in national examinations.

I would now like to move on to another aspect of education which needs more focus in Singapore – financial literacy.

Singapore is a major financial hub, with numerous global, regional and local institutional investors and high-net-worth family offices based here. Billions of investment funds are raised and managed in Singapore.

Yet, Singaporeans generally lack the financial know-how and confidence to manage their own personal finances and plan for their future. In a private sector survey in 2022, more than half of Singaporeans considered themselves “financially illiterate”. The same survey showed that financial literacy is the lowest among the age group of 18 to 24, at only 35%. In the MoneySENSE National Financial Capability Survey 2021, four in 10 respondents said they lacked knowledge of basic financial concepts, such as risk diversification and simple and compound interest, and more than half had not developed a retirement plan.

MoneySENSE is Singapore’s national financial education programme. In the two decades since it was started, it has launched various programmes and provided resources to help Singaporeans better manage their finances. However, the programmes seem to be mostly ad hoc and campaign-driven. Various surveys have been conducted on financial literacy among Singaporeans since its launch, but it is not clear how much the financial literacy of Singaporeans has improved over the last two decades, as these surveys do not seem to have followed the same scope or framework.

Based on the results of the recent surveys, it appears that a lot more needs to be done to enhance Singaporeans’ financial capacity and literacy. And instead of doing more, it appears that some co-funding of financial literacy workshops for schools under MoneySENSE has been discontinued.

For a developed country, with such high educational, wealth and income levels, and an established status as a leading international financial hub, the survey results show worrying statistics about the financial literacy rate in Singapore. To improve our financial resilience as a nation, there is a need to plug the current financial literacy gap among Singaporeans and empower Singaporeans with the knowledge and confidence to take greater ownership of their financial well-being.

I would like to share three suggestions to systematically uplift the financial literacy of Singaporeans and empower them with the knowledge and confidence to manage their own financial health.

First of all, I would like to suggest that the Government develop a National Financial Literacy Framework to provide a systematic basis for benchmarking improvements in financial literacy levels over time. In the Financial Literacy Survey conducted by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in 2005, a scoring system was mooted, covering both knowledge and action. However, it appears that the scoring system was discontinued in subsequent surveys. Aggregate financial literacy statistics of Singaporeans should be established, measured and tracked as part of ascertaining Singapore’s financial resilience.

Second, I would like to suggest that the Government establish a National Financial Education Programme under MOE to provide proactive and comprehensive financial education for Singaporeans across all ages.

I note that the Minister for Education had mentioned previously that financial literacy is infused into subjects such as Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), and that the Student Learning Space provides self-paced lessons for students to learn financial literacy. However, I believe financial literacy is such a critical subject matter that we should not adopt a “by-the-way” approach.

Instead, we should equip Singaporeans across all ages with deeper financial knowledge and confidence. This should include not just MoneySENSE’s Tier 1 knowledge of basic money management but should also aim to significantly improve Singaporeans’ financial capacity in Tier 2, which is financial planning, and Tier 3, investment knowhow.

Financial literacy should be included as a standalone subject taught in schools, as good financial habits need to be started from young. It does not need to be an examinable subject. Financial literacy clubs can be included as a co-curricular activity across all schools. These clubs can also be set up at all community and SAFRA clubs, with structured activities.

Third, the concentration of household wealth in residential property assets needs to be addressed to give Singaporeans the financial freedom to explore other asset classes for their retirement planning in order to achieve better diversification and improve returns on their assets.

According to the Department of Statistics, almost half of Singapore’s household wealth is in residential property assets. A DBS report has indicated that property will no longer be the best retirement investment in Singapore in the future. Having half of Singaporeans’ wealth in a single, relatively illiquid asset is a financial risk. Contrary to the common perception, other asset classes have also generated returns comparable to Singapore's residential real estate, even in the Singapore property boom period, especially after factoring in costs related to holding and transacting properties.

As I had mentioned in my speech on the Motions on public housing in February, we need to moderate the growth in housing prices and ensure they do not outpace Singapore’s economic growth. It is unlikely that Singapore’s economic growth will be anywhere close to what was achieved in the past few decades. Therefore, it is also unlikely that, moving forward, Singaporeans’ residential property assets can deliver a level of returns similar to what was previously achieved, without causing undue inflationary pressures.

Equipping Singaporeans with better financial literacy will help them to become willing to have a more diversified asset portfolio and make more sound decisions while doing so, taking into consideration their risk profile and circumstances. This could, in turn, better secure Singaporeans’ retirement adequacy.

Mr Speaker, in summary, our education system should provide more opportunities for our students to pursue their interests as long as they have demonstrated their commitment and ability to complete the whole course of study. We need to move away from the over-emphasis on preparing for high stakes examinations, and place greater focus on enjoying learning and achieving subject and skills mastery.

Equipping Singaporeans with greater financial knowledge and confidence will enable them to take charge of their financial well-being and make better-informed decisions on their personal finances. Strengthening Singaporeans’ financial resilience will also serve to enhance our overall resilience as a nation.

Finally, Sir, I would like to respond to what the hon Member, Mr Murali Pillai, said in his speech earlier on. Sir, unanimous agreement on both sides of the House is not a prerequisite for national unity. Rational and responsible debate in Parliament that focuses on policies, not personalities, is the way to express our diverse views and improve our policies, with the objective of improving the lives of Singaporeans while remaining united as one people. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.

3.00 pm

Mr Raj Joshua Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, meritocracy is part of the Singapore ethos and is one of the key contributors to our success. It may be defined as a system, organisation or society in which people are chosen for or occupy positions of success, wealth, power and influence on the basis of demonstrated ability and hard work. In other words, it is a system in which there is a promise of reward in recognition of talent and industry.

This promise of reward has encouraged many Singaporeans to set ambitious targets for themselves to achieve as best they can in business as well as in the Public Service. This has driven our economy and has also attracted global talent to Singapore who have contributed tremendously to us becoming an international business hub. Meritocracy continues to be relevant, and we should maintain it as Singapore's key societal organising principle.

However, our form of meritocracy has also led to unintended consequences. First, professions of the mind have been over-prioritised over professions of the hands and has led to significant differences in renumeration. Second, intergenerational transfers of wealth threaten to create a permanent over-class which gives rise to inequity in access to opportunities.

I thank the President for having raised these concerns in her speech. I would like to make some suggestions as to how we could tackle these challenges.

First, we should look at recognising the value of the work done by workers who work with their hands or who are in the practical professions. The President specifically raised this. I submit that we should leverage heavily on the existing and any upcoming Progressive Wage Model (PWM) sectors to achieve this. How can this be done?

Primarily, the PWM is a wage ladder. In this regard, I would like to encourage the Government, unions and industry to consider accelerating the wage increases of our PWM workers. Raising wages will help to effect the shift in our definition of merit by showing that the work done by these workers, even if not generally considered work of the mind, is also important and will of the reward.

For example, cleaners ensure the cleanliness of Singapore which is a distinctively Singaporean characteristic that contributes to our comfort and health and the aesthetics of our country. It is important work and it is often backbreaking work. It is physically intensive. There is no reason why such work should be considered lesser than other work and less deserving of high reward.

We should also accelerate job redesign by incentivising employers. One way would be to modify the wage rungs in the existing PWMs such that each has a basic and an enhanced sub-realm. In order to qualify for the enhanced sub-realm, workers must be trained in specific skills, for example, the use of technology. In return, they will be entitled to a higher wage floor within that PWM realm. Employers who hire more of these workers and pay at the higher rates could receive a progressive wage and hence, rung incentive. This will encourage more employers to transform their businesses to upskill their workers and to offer more sophisticated services to their clients.

There is already a Progressive Wage Credit Scheme but this payout is across the board for all wage increases. Could we consider tweaking it so that it does not support all wage increases in the PWM sectors equally, but provides more support for the right types of wage increases? This will help to improve our workers not only in terms of what they earn but also redesign their jobs from being largely manual to being higher skilled, uplifting how their jobs are perceived, as well as how they themselves feel about their professions.

Next, we can foster changes in mindset towards the practical professions by choosing our nomenclature carefully. Instead of referring to these sectors as low-wage sectors, perhaps, we could consider referring to them as maybe emerging wage sectors or emerging wage workers. The whole purpose of the PWM is to get these workers out of being low-wage earners. But, if on the journey there, we keep referring to them as low-wage workers, we may unwittingly create a stigma that will stick even after we have lifted them from being low wage.

Second, I would like to propose that we also create opportunities in our education system for students to be exposed to the practical professions so that they can see and experience the work done by these sectors and learn to appreciate that all work is good work. Perhaps, one day, we will see our students seeking internships or apprenticeships as technicians, arborists or waiters, and not just in law firms and banks.

Finally, Sir, as raised by the President, there is a need to address intergenerational wealth accumulation and the formation of a permanent overclass. I would like to suggest that the Government consider introducing a limited inheritance tax by way of a stamp duty tax on inherited real property.

Inheritance tax is a form of wealth tax and can be gradated so that it is progressive in nature; that is, the wealthier will be taxed more and would pay more. The raison d'etre for this is that the rich presumably benefit more from state resources and also because progressive taxes act as a means to redistribute resources in society.

In principle, I do not think that many would dispute the principles behind wealth taxes. However, we must be careful when designing and implementing any form of wealth tax so that we do not undo the features that underpin Singapore's success and prosperity in the first place. We must avoid becoming unattractive as a destination for foreign investment or to disincentivise our people from working hard and aspiring to grow their wealth. In other words, wealth taxes should not diminish the value of merit and should not affect our overall attractiveness as a business hub.

Currently, inherited residential property is not taxed and does not even attract stamp duty. The Government can consider introducing a tax based on the percentage of the value of the property and the percentage of tax should be higher the more expensive the property inherited is. The minimum could begin from, say, a property value of S$5 million and gradated upwards from there. Inheritance tax in OECD countries can go as high as 40%. But I would suggest more modest rates, perhaps in line with the additional buyers' stamp duties, that can go up to 25% for Singapore Citizens and 35% for foreigners.

The tax regime should be able to take into consideration the personal circumstances of beneficiaries and provide appropriate exemptions. There should, for example, be exemptions for beneficiaries with special needs and HDB flats should also be exempted from inheritance taxes – and hopefully, they will not reach that limit of S$5 million anyway!

There should also be provision for beneficiaries to be able to pay the tax by instalments over a period of time. Some would argue that some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the tax despite having inherited a multimillion-dollar property. My view is that they should sell the property to make payment of their dues to the Government. There are also mechanisms that an individual may take up, for example, life insurance that can cover any taxes that beneficiaries may have to pay after that individual has passed.

Why do I suggest an inheritance tax on property?

Inheritance taxes are different from estate duties. Estate duties tax the estate of a deceased person and, in my view, this could be seen as a form of double taxation because the deceased had already paid taxes while alive. In this regard, inheritance is anyway not treated as a gift under the law. It should be treated as a form of income received by the beneficiary and like all income, it should be taxed.

The basic principle, Sir, of meritocracy is that one should be rewarded for his capabilities and hard work. Inheritance provides rewards that are not pursuant to capability or hard work. They are unmeritorious rewards that one is entitled to only by virtue of birth and/or bequeathment. It does not stimulate innovation, entrepreneurship or industry. In fact, it entrenches entitlement and it promotes indolence.

Although it may be the impulse of parents to wish to provide for their children and to leave a legacy, inheritance, in my view, is a very antithesis of meritocracy. As a Scottish American industrialist, Andrew Carnegie said, "The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son and tempts him to lead a less worthy life than he otherwise would have."

A large proportion of the wealthy at this point store their wealth in property. And, as a form of investment, it is generally less helpful to society at large than other things of wealth, like capital or shares, which contribute to economic output as well as to employment.

Further to this, as for any text, we should also consider whether it would result in onerous administration and whether it is sustainable. Taxes on inherited real property are relatively easy to administer as valuation is straightforward and, in Singapore, transfer processes are transparent. It is therefore the lowest hanging fruit to promote equity and fairness and fair access to opportunities across generations based on merit. Introducing such a tax may have a collateral benefit of lowering property prices by easing house price inflation and properties being put up for sale that may not have otherwise come up on the market.

This having been said, there are many serious considerations in whether it is appropriate to implement wealth and inheritance taxes. It is not something that we should rush into because it may itself have unintended consequences. But as the President said, as we prosper as a society, those who have already done well will seek to pass their advantages to their children, and this could lead to advantages and privileges becoming entrenched and persisting over generations. Inheritance taxes are one measure we could consider implementing to battle this.

I do not think that we should seek to build a classless society or that children should not be allowed to benefit from their parents' hard work. What we should aim to build is an inclusive society where capabilities and hard work in every sector are recognised and rewarded, and where, even when one attains success, he does not feel that he has become superior or be given the right to look down on others but feels responsibility to help others to advance as well.

We must also take steps to prevent an entrenched overclass from forming by rich families building wealth over generations and scions benefiting from nothing but the hard work of their forebears. All must feel the need to work hard in Singapore in order to earn our rewards. We must act on this; for if we do not, we risk descending from a meritocracy to an aristocracy and that, Sir, is what we must avoid at all costs.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Desmond Tan.

3.11 pm

The Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Desmond Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Labour Movement supports the broad directions of the Government set out in the President's Address. Underpinning these is the strong foundation of trust that was demonstrated and strengthened through our shared experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), our vision is for "a better and more meaningful life where workers of all collars, ages and nationalities can work, live and play together in Singapore." And we achieve this through Singapore's unique brand of tripartism in which the Labour Movement stands shoulder to shoulder with our partners towards the shared objective of growing the economy, to secure better wages, welfare and work prospects for all workers.

In the pandemic, our local businesses and workers were heavily impacted. NTUC worked closely with the Government to coordinate assistance programmes to protect lives and livelihoods. Our support ranged from unions' ground efforts with companies to "cut costs to save jobs", to the provision of cash relief to union members and helping tens of thousands of workers with skills retraining and job placements.

All these policies and programmes are not possible without the trust and value that tripartism had achieved over the years. As Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong had said in his speech at the May Day Rally 2018, "Tripartism has seen us through every crisis since Independence... Through our first major recessions, the oil crisis in 1970s, the major recession in 1985… It showed us through the Asian Financial Crisis, SARS and the Global Financial Crisis. Each time, the challenges seemed daunting, sometimes even overwhelming. But without the Labour Movement partnering companies, without the NTUC partnering the PAP in a symbiotic relationship, without the Government, unions and businesses sharing responsibility for Singapore's future, we would not have made it here."

Tripartite trust built up over decades withstood many trials and tribulations in our young history and was strengthened after each and every crisis. COVID-19 was no exception and we must continue to strengthen this trust that is the basis of tripartism going to the future.

Moving forward, the Labour Movement will persist in our efforts to protect the rights and to advance the interests and aspirations of all workers. The future of work will have new sets of challenges and difficulties: ever-evolving geopolitics, technological advancements and disruptions and sociocultural shifts. NTUC will continue to renew and strengthen our compact with our workers.

To do so, NTUC launched the #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations (#EWMC) last year to refresh our compact with our workers and to give greater assurance that we will journey with them, alongside them and to champion their cause.

Through the #EWMC, we have heard the voices of various groups of workers across all ages, sectors and backgrounds, and we will adjust our strategies to meet their needs and their aspirations.

I will now share three main areas that NTUC will focus on going forward: (a) expand career opportunities; (b) enhance assurance and protection; and (c) ensure career resilience.

Let me start with the first area – expand career opportunities – with a quote from the President last week, “Every Singaporean must have the opportunity to take on work they find meaningful and fulfilling, build on their talents, give of their best and be rewarded fairly for it.”

At NTUC, we want to provide each and every worker with an equal chance to choose a career that they want and to advance as far as they wish in a way to allow them to grow and to develop. Let me highlight two worker segments and what are our plans for them.

First is the skilled tradesmen. In early February 2023, the NTUC Secretary-General mooted the Career Progression Model (CPM) as part of our efforts to uplift workers in skilled essential trades, to develop their skills, help them attain mastery and build long-term potential careers. The CPM was a continuation of what the NTUC Secretary-General said previously in 2020, and again in 2021, about professionalising the solar technologists and plumbers respectively through a Career Development Plan. COVID-19 border restrictions revealed an urgent need to step up our efforts to uplift this sector.

There are currently more than 50,000 local workers in skilled trades, ranging from electrical and electronic tradesmen, building and related trades workers, among others. However, there is also a growing concern of a “skilled trades gap” as the older generation retires, coupled with the lack of qualified candidates to step up to fill the gaps. According to the Singapore Labour Force Survey 2022, more than half of the craftsmen and related trades workers are currently above 50 years old.

NTUC wants to ensure a sustainable supply of locals into these trades to meet our national needs. To start off, NTUC will prioritise three essential trades that have a direct impact on our daily lives – plumbers, electricians and air-conditioner technicians. Supporting these workers is also part of our social compact to be a more inclusive society, where we do not just recognise cognitive skills but also technical and hands-on skills.

Another key group that we set out to engage is youths. Youths today are faced with a more competitive education and employment landscape. At the height of COVID-19 when there were limited jobs, the SGUnited Traineeships Programme has been a tremendous help. But NTUC thinks that our younger workers, embarking on the first steps in their careers, will need more support.

We want our future workforce to be able to dream big, aspire high and achieve their fullest potential in whatever they wish to do in a wide range of career opportunities. Mr Raj Joshua Thomas will be happy to hear that we will be partnering many Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) to allow a lot more opportunities for our young undergraduates in this area of work.

NTUC’s networks with industry and with workers of different cohorts make us well placed to link them up with internship opportunities and career mentors across different sectors. We will share more on our plans over the next few months.

The second area of focus is to enhance career assurance and protection. We want to support our workers with their immediate concerns in tackling higher cost of living and also in addressing mid- to longer-term issues of job security, unemployment support, retirement adequacy and also caregiver support.

For our lower-wage workers, the Labour Movement has been actively pushing for more workers to be covered under the PWM. We have made much progress in uplifting lower-wage workers and will continue to press on to cover all sectors and to implement PWM in good time.

Our mid-career workers, especially those above 40 years of age, are another segment of workers who are very vulnerable to industry disruptions and restructuring. They are also in a particularly precarious position should they lose their jobs, as they generally have more dependents and more financial responsibilities. We will continue to advocate income support for those who lose their jobs, tied to certain active job seeking and reskilling. My fellow Labour Member of Parliament Mr Patrick Tay has been championing for unemployment support and protection in Parliament since as early as 2014 and on several other occasions in the House, and I am sure he will continue to push for it through the PME Taskforce proposal that was finalised in 2021.

NTUC also recognises that more protections should be accorded to our freelance and self-employed workers, including our platform workers. The recent announcement on work injuries compensation, improving housing and retirement adequacy, and enhancing representation is a welcomed move. We will continue to work closely with the tripartite partners to see through the implementation and to further strengthen their representation.

Our senior workers should also be tapped upon and valued for their experience and their industry knowledge. Our workers must also be assured that they are able to achieve basic retirement adequacy.

Finally, workers with caregiving responsibilities often find it challenging to balance their career aspirations, finances and caring for their loved ones. We want to look into how we can better support them to reduce the mental and emotional load on caregivers.

The third area of focus for NTUC is to ensure career resilience. As the global job market evolves, our workers will experience change and disruption over their lifetime in their career. And this increases the importance of career resilience and upskilling. To plan for a longer horizon, NTUC will support our workers to handle career changes by developing new and deepening existing skills to stay relevant and competitive.

During the Budget debate, I have called for training allowances to be given to mid-career workers to give them greater peace of mind in undergoing longer and also undergoing the SkillsFuture Career Transition Programme. I have also called for increased financial support and protected training time to enable workers to acquire deeper skillsets throughout their careers, or equip themselves to pivot to new areas. Going forward, this is an area that will need support from all tripartite partners to ensure our workers’ skillsets remain relevant and our businesses have adequate workers to sustain our future economy.

Finally, I will continue to call on all employers to work with NTUC to form the Company Training Committees (CTCs). With the acceleration of digital and green economy, it is imperative for companies to plan ahead, to capitalise key trends and transform their businesses. Through CTCs, NTUC will support companies to do all that, plus redesign jobs, upskill and reskill workers and collectively achieve greater business and workers’ outcomes. CTCs are a win-win initiative for employers and workers, supported firmly by the Government through the CTC grant. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, in order to better understand the aspirations of our workers and better serve them, NTUC has rolled out the #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations that lasted for one year, starting from August last year. Through more active communication with our workers, we want to work together with them to create a better future.

NTUC will focus on three key areas in our future work: first, help workers to capture economic opportunities in the future; second, protect our workers' interest; and third, increase the career resilience of our workers.

First, NTUC will help workers capture opportunities in the future. We hope that through the Career Progression Model, we can encourage more Singaporeans to enter craftsman and related trades such as plumbing, electrical works and air-conditioning maintenance and master a skill. This will also ensure the continuous development of these industries. We also need to ensure that our youth and young workers, no matter what economic situation our country is in, will be able to find suitable jobs, use their skills and contribute to our economy.

Second, NTUC will continue to protect our workers’ interests. In the short term, NTUC will help our workers address higher cost of living; in the medium to longterm, NTUC will help address urgent issues including providing better jobs, unemployment insurance, retirement adequacy and care support.

As the global economy and technology continues to advance, workers between the ages of 40 and 50 will continue to face higher risk of being unemployed or replaced. The Government, during the pandemic, has rolled out many programmes to help our workers retain their jobs. In the future, NTUC will work together with the Government to expand our programme to help more Singaporeans.

In addition, with the number of platform workers rising and the development of the gig economy, NTUC will work together with our tripartite partners, through the Advisory Committee on Platform Workers, to enhance the retirement adequacy, housing security and work injury insurance for our platform workers. These will better represent the interests of our freelancers and self-employed workers.

Third, improving our workers' career resilience. We must encourage our workers to continue to upskill and strengthen their competitiveness and adaptability in the new environment. During the Budget debate, I have asked for more training allowances and training time so that workers can receive long-term and deeper training with peace of mind.

In addition, since 2019, NTUC has encouraged enterprises to set up their Company Training Committee (CTC) to help the company to transform and upgrade and allow their employees to participate in training to upskill and transform. We hope that with more enterprises joining this programme, more workers would be able to master future-ready skills and companies can enjoy stronger competitiveness too.

In conclusion, our goals are very simple. We want to help our workers to find a job that they are proud of, protect their livelihood and create a brighter future with quality jobs and lives.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, generations of Government and NTUC leaders have worked hard to uphold personal integrity and trust in every aspect. And the dividends can clearly be seen in the way we have navigated through the pandemic. However, we must be vigilant to always nurture this trust because we are not immune to what is happening around us and around the world.

As the Labour Movement, we will continue to advocate workers’ interests through improving wages, welfare and work prospects. As shared by Mr Lee Kuan Yew at a mass rally in Geylang Serai in 1959 and, thereafter, repeated at the NTUC’s 50th Anniversary Dinner in 2011, and I quote, “In Government, I have never forgotten that it is in the interests of workers and their unions that we must strive for growth and development. In other words, growth is meaningless unless it is shared by the workers, shared not only directly in wage increases but indirectly in better homes, better schools, better hospitals, better playing fields and, generally, a healthier environment for families to bring up their children.” The President Address last week sets out the Government’s plans to achieve just that.

In the Labour Movement, our commitment is to always put workers first, ensure that workers will have better job opportunities, assurances and protection and the resilience to adapt, upskill and retrain themselves to remain relevant for the future. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.32 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim.

3.51 pm

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech three years ago in a similar Address of Thanks, I talked about the building blocks of our nation and society. I likened it to the Lego bricks that my son loves to play with.

First, at the core of its structure, each brick must be strong. This is the family unit and each of us, fellow Singaporeans.

Second, the interlocking connection between each brick must be strong. This is our social cohesion that makes building something bigger than ourselves not just possible but also durable in the long run.

Third, the different shapes and sizes of each Lego brick not only complement one another but also when combined makes them unique and vibrant. This is our multiracial and multi-religious society that makes Singapore rich not only in culture but also diverse in views and expertise.

This is why I resonate with the Address of the President, which reiterates the Government's commitment to strengthen our basic building blocks – our families and fellow Singaporeans – by holding on to our core values of fairness, inclusivity, mutual support and giving back to society. These values were embodied in the many success stories of our everyday Singaporeans working together with the Government, the community and the businesses to help all of us get through the pandemic together.

For me, President Halimah's speech not only presented the Government's priorities and plans in the coming period, but it also acknowledged how we managed to overcome the pandemic and its challenges together as one society. The President's speech also reminded us that we face an important challenge to ensure that there remains continued trust between the political leadership and our people and between all of us fellow Singaporeans.

This is not to say that we have to be monolithic or homogenous in our views and approach. We need courageous Singaporeans who are brave enough to experiment things differently, who dare to speak up and are willing to stand up for the issues that matter to all Singaporeans.

Inevitably, this part of the nation-building process means that there will necessarily be divergent views – each with its own benefits and trade-offs. The rigour of debates and contestation of ideas on issues that are important to Singaporeans can help all of us formulate new ways forward for Singapore. Iron sharpens iron.

However, at the same time, such discussions must be done respectfully and responsibly, based on facts and on honest terms. Whether these discussions are in the halls of this House or in the comfort of our homes, we can hold different opinions but we must believe in the same vision for the betterment of Singapore.

This must be our pillar of strength – our unity in diversity regardless of race, religion or political inclinations.

Through the Forward Singapore conversations, the Government's call to involve various stakeholders – employers, workers, community partners, civil society and, indeed, all Singaporeans – in our nation-building means that we would be able to tap on our nation's greatest resource; not our Reserves but each other's strengths and expertise.

We must unlock our collective spirit to help one another. This is the principle of social solidarity where the people, through its government, bear equally the responsibility and burden for helping fellow citizens. The task of helping the underprivileged or vulnerable in our society does not fall on the shoulders of the Government or civil society alone but on all of us.

But how do we maintain such social cohesion and solidarity? Just like the Lego bricks, we need to strengthen the interlocking connections that bind us and guard against threats and external forces that seek to divide us and undermining our painstakingly built level of trust in the institutions of our nation and society.

During the first half of this Parliament term, this House has debated and passed various pieces of legislation to further put us in better stead to withstand against such potential external forces through amendments to the Online Safety Act, enactment of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act and the formation of the Digital and Intelligence Service of the SAF.

Externally, we must continue to remain vigilant and ensure our laws keep up to date with global trends, threats and developments. Internally, we must remain steadfast and committed to our Singaporean values of living in an open but multiracial and multi-religious society. The pandemic has laid bare the vulnerabilities of societies all over the world. Global studies have found that there is a correlation between the pandemic and explicit xenophobic and racial prejudices.

Anti-discrimination or legislative guards against hate speech go some way but we also need a softer approach for a more enduring harmony. I look forward to the Government's plans to ensure that our laws remain relevant in maintaining our social and racial harmony.

In particular, I am looking forward to the full implementation of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act, first announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during the 2021 National Day Rally speech. This will complement the existing Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act passed since 1990.

The new law is meant to consolidate all current legal powers dispersed across the Penal Code and Sedition Act to ensure the maintenance of racial harmony in Singapore. It will not only provide the powers to restrain someone from committing an offence regarding racism but also compel them to learn more about the other race. This understanding and appreciation of one another's values and cultures is the key towards breaking the cycle of ignorance and racism.

I hope that the law will also offer protection to whistle-blowers who report such instances of racial prejudices and unfair employment practices.

Besides protection and safeguards on our social cohesion, we also need ways to promote social solidarity. I agree with the President that as we strive for success and progress for our nation, we must not allow our society to stratify into those who have and those who are left behind. We need to build a sense of collective responsibility among us.

We must appreciate the interdependence between people in our society. We must make Singaporeans feel that they can improve the lives of others and, in the same process, uplift their own lives in a meaningful way.

This begins with our young. As such, I welcome the changes to our education system to promote greater social mixing and competency-based subject learning and the infusion of value-based interactions and engagements in our children's educational journey.

In adulthood and working life, we see more businesses – both employers and employees – dedicate more pro bono hours towards corporate social responsibility activities on various causes that are beneficial to Singaporeans. We must continue to promote and incentivise this "paying it forward" as part of our working culture here in Singapore and truly understand that there is no contradiction between doing what is best for the company and doing what is good for the community and nation.

The President also emphasised that in paying it forward, we must help one another to stand tall with dignity and pride. This means that it is not patronising from the perspective of the person receiving.

In this regard, I am glad that we have provided various uplifting measures that allow those who need a helping hand to get the boost they need to upgrade and upskill themselves in the path towards social mobility. This is a work in progress and we must continue to refine the approach and solutions in a targeted yet dignified and respectful manner without converting the social mobility ladder into a crutch of help that will be both belittling and debilitating.

The last term of our Parliament session has also seen the Government afford more help through housing, healthcare and social welfare policies, passing legislation to form the Public Defender's Office to allow greater access to criminal justice and changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which affords greater vigilance against the scourge of drug abuse, especially on the vulnerable segments of our society.

We must continue to keep a close eye on areas that will affect the social harmony and justice for the vulnerable groups in our society. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In my view, President Halimah's speech not only lays out the Government's priorities and future plans, but it also acknowledges how we managed to overcome the pandemic together as one people. At the same time, however, the President's speech recognised that the key challenge is to ensure that there was continued trust between the political leadership and our people and between Singaporeans.

Our pillars of strength are peace and unity in diversity regardless of race, religion or political views. I agree that the approach and discussion of issues that concern our people and community should be discussed respectfully, responsibly, factually and judiciously. I agree that generally, for issues that are important to our country, many of us place national interests above individual rights. However, this is not always guaranteed and the critical challenge for all of us is to prioritise social cohesion and our country’s progress in an ever-changing post-pandemic world.

Let us respond to the call for unity to ensure that while we achieve progress for our people and country, we do not overlook those who are in greater need so that they are not engulfed in the tide of modernity and change. We should not leave them behind because if everyone does not experience happiness and progress, our social fabric will be incomplete and imperfect – as the Malay proverb goes, it will be like an unfinished dress because the thread ran out and the needle broke.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, as our society grows through decades of nation-building, we have built a sense of identity and belonging as Singaporeans. However, who qualifies as a member of our society should not be narrowly defined and we should not be quick to succumb to the othering phenomenon and the pitting of "us" versus "them" – whatever "us" and "them" mean.

The fault lines in our society can be easily exploited, knowingly or unknowingly, through the differences in how we look, where we come from, whether or not we can speak a certain language, whether we belong to the same social standing or whether we agree or disagree on a particular policy. We cannot allow these to seep into the language of our politics and divide us.

I concur with the President's call for all of us to close ranks and stand united regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, especially when it comes to core national interests.

SG50, SG Together, SGUnited, SG Cares – all of these campaigns are reminders of what we can achieve when we remain united in our hearts and minds. Let us continue to stand with one another. I stand in support of the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

4.04 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Speaker, as the President highlighted in her speech, this new session of Parliament is happening at an important milestone of our history, indeed, of world history.

After three years of the COVID-19 crisis, we now confront other formidable challenges. But as we have seen again and again in our history, we can find opportunities in every crisis and move quickly to take advantage of them.

There are stark realities facing Singapore and the wider world. From the war in Europe to deepening big power rivalry in our part of the world, we all feel a palpable sense of danger – danger not just to the economy, but also to an open and stable global order.

We will continue to be afflicted by these external headwinds. I know many Singaporeans worry about the unexpected twists and turns that may lie ahead. They see interest rates, prices and bills going up and impacting their livelihoods.

That is why I had implemented comprehensive support measures in this year's Budget. These measures will help to cover the inflation-induced increase in spending for lower- and middle-income households.

Some of the support has been given out, while others will be rolled out progressively over the year. We have and will continue to do everything we can to address the stresses and strains that people feel on the ground.

Besides tackling the cost of living, sustaining growth will be more challenging in this new environment. We will have to redouble our efforts to attract investments and talent, and create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans. We will have to intensify the pace of restructuring and transformation to stay ahead of the competition.

All this will not be easy, but COVID-19 has shown that Singaporeans have what it takes – the grit and resolve to overcome tough challenges. The odds may appear stacked against us, but we can turn challenges into opportunity. With pride in our history and strength from our unity, we can forge ahead with confidence. So, I say – do not fear. Never lose heart.

We will build on our strong foundations, but we must also have the courage to change where change is needed. This is what my colleagues and I have set out to do with Forward Singapore. Through this exercise, we are reviewing our policies across all areas. We will ensure that the broad middle of society and their children see continued improvements in their lives, and that we close the gaps for the more disadvantaged groups.

We have heard from Singaporeans over the past months – your views, aspirations and ideas. The many conversations and partnerships have yielded fresh insights on what we can do differently in our next stage of nation-building.

Today, I will share some of the key shifts that we will embark on as part of our new social compact: a new approach on skills; a new definition of success; a new approach for social support; a new approach to caring for our seniors; and a renewed commitment to one another – less about "I" and "me", more about "us" and "we".

If we succeed in effecting these shifts, we can secure a stronger social compact and not just among ourselves, but between this generation and future generations to come.

Let me start with our new approach on skills, for skills are the lynchpin to lifelong success.

The skills journey begins early in life. We want every child to have a strong foundation that can propel them forward through life. We know that the first few years matter greatly in shaping a child's potential. So, we are scaling up the KidSTART programme nationwide to reach out to more lower-income parents and to close the early gaps in our children's lives.

Beyond the age of three, we are stepping up the provision of MOE Kindergartens and Government-funded preschools. Enrolment in preschool at ages five to six is already near universal, but the attendance rate of children from lower-income families can still be improved. At ages three to four especially, more children from such families can also benefit from enrolling in preschool. We will study how to strengthen their participation in these early years of development, so that we can give the children in these families the best possible start in life.

Once our children enter the school system, there is a comprehensive system in place to help them develop and grow. We already provide more resources in our schools to support children with greater learning needs. And we will continue to do more on this front, so that every child can realise his or her full potential.

But there is a deeper challenge in our education system: our concept of meritocracy remains too narrow. Many feel caught in a rat race from a young age – under pressure to get the best grades, get into what they perceive to be the best schools so that they can get the best university places.

Many parents, too, are anxious about their children's future. Some go to great lengths to maximise their children's chances to get into perceived brand name schools, even preschools.

A decade ago, Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said that "Every school is a good school”. I fully agree with this. Because in Singapore, everyone can be assured that, no matter which schools their children are admitted into, they will receive a good education, and they will be well supported by their teachers.

That was my lived experience too. I went to the primary and secondary schools near my home and reaped the full benefits of learning in those schools.

That was decades ago. And the quality of our schools and teachers has improved dramatically since. These days, our teachers do not just focus on content and knowledge. They help our children to think independently and instil in them qualities and values that contribute to lasting success in life.

Remember, at the end of the day, we are more than our grades. We are more than the schools we go to.

This is an aspiration Singaporeans have voiced for some time now, from when we held Our Singapore Conversation a decade ago. Since then, we have made significant moves and slayed some sacred cows.

Today, PSLE T-scores are a thing of the past. So will be the labels of Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express streams. In their place, there is full Subject-based Banding (SBB).

We hope these moves will go some way to remove the stressors in our education system. But more importantly, we hope they will signal to all in society that we are serious about refreshing our system.

I hope that our society too – every man, woman and child, young and old, rich or poor – all of us will be serious about refreshing our mindsets about schools and grades. It is not possible to change something that has become so ingrained in our nature by government decree. We must be the change we want to see in our society. Every Singaporean must want to give themselves and their children more breathing space to discover and develop their diverse talents and to maximise their potential.

How do we achieve this?

A key mindset shift is to recognise that formal education early in life is not the endpoint of our meritocracy. Far from it. Our refreshed meritocracy must be a continuous one, with learning opportunities, milestones and ladders at multiple junctures. All must have the chance to try again, do better and move forward in life, years after leaving school.

So, the skills journey begins in schools but it does not end with schools. Our new approach on skills must include a fresh commitment to making continuous learning, reskilling and upskilling a way of life.

In fact, this will become more important with slower economic growth, rapid technological disruptions and greater job churn. To remain an upwardly mobile society, lifelong learning will be key – not just upskilling once and being done with it, but multiple times, to become more adaptable and resilient, well-equipped and confident to face the future.

To get there, education cannot be confined to the first 25 years of our lives. Learning must be a lifelong journey for the whole of our lives.

We launched SkillsFuture in 2015. We have made some headway since then, but there is still much more to be done. We are therefore looking at major changes to strengthen SkillsFuture.

We aim to reduce the costs and lower the barriers to training. We will work with industry partners to come up with effective training programmes, including work-based learning options. These courses will have to be better curated and vetted so that they translate into meaningful employment outcomes. We will discuss with tripartite partners how we can support workers to take time off to train. This will help the workers individually, but it will help businesses too.

At the same time, businesses must shift their emphasis from hiring credentials to hiring skills and invest in the development of their employees. And Singaporeans themselves must be open to change.

Sir, let me share with you the story of Afifah. Nur Afifah Bte Rakif graduated with a Diploma in Communication and Information Design 11 years ago, when she was 22. She later chose to teach in a preschool in 2013, took up various early childhood education programmes to reskill and upskill, and became the Deputy Centre Lead of the NTUC First Campus. To strengthen her skillsets, she is now pursuing a degree under the Singapore University of Social Science (SUSS) Work-Study Programme and will graduate later this year. Afifah exemplifies the spirit of lifelong learning and the value of reskilling and upskilling in pursuing one's passions. And I salute her.

With this new approach on skills, how well you did in school should not define the opportunities you can unlock nor should it determine your entire life. You are not stuck at your highest formal educational level attained; you can update your skillsets, pivot to new careers, seize new opportunities and keep moving forward in life.

Some other nations aspire to create a welfare society from cradle to grave. We will aspire to create in Singapore a full-fledged learning society – from cradle to grave. [Applause.]

That is how we will become a people ready for the future and equipped to succeed.

But what does success mean? Naturally, it means different things to different people, in different places. Yet somehow, as a society, we tend to converge around a few material definitions – the size of the paycheck or the property we own.

How can we shift our lens and collectively adopt and embrace wider definitions of success? After all, success is really for each one of us to define. There is no model answer to follow. We should not feel pressured to compare with others or to conform to preconceived notions. The Japanese talk about discovering your "ikigai" – something that gives you a sense of purpose and joy. We should strive to be a meritocracy where everyone can be the best possible version of themselves and where there are many ways for diverse talents to contribute and earn respect in our society.

Mindset shifts are necessary, but I do not think mindset shifts alone will effect societal change. It is not enough to say we will celebrate a variety of professions. Our economic structures, remuneration and career prospects in various professions must also be consistent with what we value.

So, we will consider ways to tilt the scales and narrow the wage gap across professions. One specific way is to further professionalise skilled trades, like electricians and plumbers. Why not enable them to attain accreditation for their skills and set a clearer progression ladder as they take on greater responsibilities? We can ascribe the right values to such forms of labour and grant such workers greater remuneration as professionals.

More broadly, we also want to give Singaporeans who graduate from ITE and polytechnics stronger assurance; that their wages and career prospects will not be too far below their university-going peers and will not be permanently conscribed to be below. So, they do not have to succumb to a paper chase to secure a good salary and a viable career path. They can excel in the professions that they have trained in and have the aptitude for, be it hospitality, infocomm, social services or others. There are many ways to make a difference, many talents to nurture and many forms of contributions to reward.

Take lower-wage workers for example. Many of them serve in essential services, like security, lift maintenance and cleaning. We have been doing much to uplift lower-wage workers through Workfare and the PWM, and we will continue to do so: increase wages, set out a skills ladder, and provide opportunities to upgrade. We cannot close the gap altogether between lower-wage and median workers, but we can certainly stop their wages from diverging too far.

Here, I have a plea to everyone: for a new definition of success to become a reality, all of us – as consumers – must be willing to bear a higher cost for the goods and services we consume. We must recognise the important work that our fellow citizens undertake to keep our society going and do our part to uplift them and boost their wage prospects.

I know this is not an easy ask, given the rising cost of living. But we will do our best to manage the pace of change and to help everyone, especially our lower- and middle-income families, adjust to this new environment. And I might add too – all will gain when even the most vulnerable among us become better off. We will become a better people, a more just and a more equal society.

In a more uncertain world, we must also relook our approach on social support. How can we assure both the broad middle and the vulnerable that they can meet their needs in life and not fall by the wayside or be left behind?

For the vulnerable, we have been gradually shifting our approach from social assistance to social empowerment. We want not only to help people tide through difficulty, but also to boost their sense of drive and purpose, and strengthen their sense of agency and ownership over their own circumstances.

For example, today, we have the Fresh Start Housing Scheme to help second-timer lower-income families, like Mr Gan and his wife Mdm Chai, own a home. The two of them work as cleaners and they lived in a rental flat in Redhill. But they were determined to buy a home of their own for themselves and their young daughter.

Mr Gan and Mdm Chai joined the Fresh Start Housing Scheme and received personalised support and financial guidance from HDB and social service officers (SSOs) throughout their home ownership journey. They received a $35,000 Fresh Start Housing Grant and the rest of the loan will be fully serviced by their CPF contributions.

Today, the Gans are proud owners of a 2-room flexi flat in Bukit Batok. They collected their keys two months ago and just moved in earlier this month. Their daughter is very excited about getting to decorate her own space. And over the next five years, our officers will continue to walk alongside them and give them the support they need.

The Fresh Start Housing Scheme is, in effect, a means to uplift and empower the vulnerable. We want to expand this approach of empowerment to cover more forms of social assistance. For instance, we could provide additional financial help to vulnerable families who do their part to help themselves, such as staying gainfully employed and sending their children to preschool regularly. So, the more a family takes ownership of their goals, the more we will help you to reach even higher – a mutually reinforcing, virtuous circle.

We also want to consider another group: persons with disabilities (PwDs). We will do more to alleviate the impediments they face in life and adopt new ways of caring for and empowering them. In particular, we want to reduce the financial burden on parents of children attending special education (SPED) schools and care centres.

Equally important is to empower persons with disabilitiesPwDs when they reach adulthood. We will involve and enable them to contribute to society. The onus is on all of us to find ways to affirm the dignity of our differently-abled citizens and enable them to realise their full potential.

Sir, all of us must come together to fight the ills of inequality. Singapore must never succumb to the kind of harsh inequality we see in so many other parts of the world. However treacherous the terrains ahead, so long as Singapore continues to progress, all Singaporeans must continue to progress, with none among us left behind.

No less important in our social strategy is to assure the broad middle that they, too, can be confident of meeting their needs at every stage of life, even in the face of setbacks. Housing, education and healthcare – these are basic needs for all Singaporeans. This Government has delivered on all these fronts over the decades and we will continue to do so.

We know that housing is top-of-mind – we have discussed this recently in Parliament, in the housing debate, and in the Budget. We are sparing no effort to ramp up the supply of Build-To-Order (BTO) flats and to catch up on the delays caused by COVID-19. We have tightened the rules, so that flats go to those who need them most, as quickly as possible. And we are doing more to help younger married couples and parents own their first home. We will get this work done and we will deliver the results. Affordable and accessible public housing will always be a key pillar of our social compact under the PAP Government.

Our approach to social support also extends to how we will support our people in the face of setbacks. In a more volatile jobs landscape, we can expect more among us to be displaced from time to time. Today, we help the unemployed through schemes like ComCare and the COVID-19 Recovery Grant. They provide timely assistance while upholding our ethos of work and self-reliance.

But we also know that losing a job is a major setback, which can easily destabilise workers and their families. So, the Government will consider doing more to support our displaced workers. We know that automatic unemployment benefits can, and have, often led to negative outcomes elsewhere, because displaced workers who receive generous benefits may find it more attractive to stay unemployed, rather than to get back into the workforce.

So, we want to design a support scheme that provides assurance but avoids these negative outcomes: a targeted re-employment scheme that will reduce the strain on displaced workers to make ends meet, while still encouraging them to continue with their upskilling and job search.

We intend to make this shift in our social strategy, so every Singaporean can be confident. In this harsh, unpredictable world, we will have your back and we will support you. We will cheer you on, so you can strive to achieve, do your best and bounce back stronger. [Applause.]

Strengthening our assurances extends to caring for our seniors too – this is an urgent need, given our rapidly ageing demographics. By the end of this decade, one in four Singaporeans will be above 65, as Members are well aware. We must adopt a new approach to care for our seniors well and in a sustainable way.

We embarked on Healthier SG recently to care for our seniors upstream. Healthier SG signals a shift from treating illnesses to promoting health. If we can help our seniors stay healthy, we will reduce the need for medical intervention and hospitalisation downstream.

But care for seniors goes beyond physical health. As our seniors age, we want them to be cared for in their own homes for as long as possible, rather than in a nursing home. This way, they can remain active and purposeful in their golden years, surrounded by family, friends and familial activities. It will not be possible for everyone, but I believe we can make it possible for most.

And we will invest in our infrastructure to make this happen: build more Community Care Apartments; expand the network of Active Ageing Centres; improve access to home-based care services; and work with community partners to prevent loneliness and social isolation. We will do all this and more, so we can create a home truly for our seniors.

Our seniors must also be confident of meeting their retirement needs. We achieve this through our CPF system, which we will continue to evolve and update. The Government, in fact, now plays a larger role in CPF through higher interest for those with lower CPF balances, the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme, as well as supplementing CPF payouts with Silver Support. We will study enhancing these schemes to better support our seniors, including those nearing retirement who have less runway to work and save.

For younger Singaporeans, as long as you work and contribute to your CPF consistently, we will ensure that your needs in old age can be met through CPF. And for those who do not have the ability to work, we will find other ways to look after your retirement needs. This is our promise to Singaporeans of every generation.

Let me move on to something that underlies our refreshed social compact: we need to be less about "I", "me" and "mine", more about "we", "us" and "ours". It was our sense of collective responsibility that saw us through the pandemic, and it is the same sense of collective responsibility that will carry us through our next bound.

A social compact is not just about what Government will do for the people; it is also about what Singaporeans will do for one another. So, our refreshed social compact is not just about the Government doing more and Singaporeans depending more on the Government. Rather, it is about the Government, businesses, unions, workers, the community and civil society all doing their part for fellow Singaporeans. It is about all of us coming together, to forge a society of opportunities and assurance for everyone.

One way to realise this is to nurture a broader culture of philanthropy and volunteerism: where we take responsibility for each other and especially to help those with less. This goes beyond money, it includes investing time and effort in nurturing others – from mentoring the young to providing those from disadvantaged circumstances with access to networks and opportunities.

Another way is to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to partner the Government and one another in policy-making and co-creation. We will continue to involve Singaporeans and other groups in co-designing and shaping our neighbourhoods. We will provide more avenues and platforms for our youth to come up with policy ideas and build the future Singapore, for they are Singapore's future.

The Government will never stop investing in our urban infrastructure, developing our HDB towns by providing more facilities and amenities, and making concerted efforts to become a City in Nature. But ultimately, it is up to all of us to contribute their own passions and energies to turn this city into an endearing home.

Becoming the best home is also very much about the intangibles – among them, embracing a more holistic way of life. Be it working out flexible work arrangements; treating ourselves and one another with greater kindness and compassion, knowing that good mental health is a key part of good health overall, or creating a conducive environment for Singaporeans to start and nurture families. We made some moves in the Budget this year, such as increasing paternity leave and we will consider what more can be done.

This project of making a better Singapore has always been, and will always be, a work in progress. It has been a relentless effort over the decades. We will never stop improving, not just for ourselves but also for future generations. This ethos of building for the future, rather than burdening or weighing down our descendants, is key to Singapore's success. The prudence of the previous generation has enabled us to find our way through the COVID-19 crisis. We must do the same for those who come after us. So, let us steward our resources well, so that our children and grandchildren will be well-endowed and well-prepared to tackle any challenge the future may bring – be it the climate crisis, the next pandemic, or the unknown unknowns which will come.

Sir, I have provided a broad overview of what we hope to achieve through Forward Singapore. Over the next few days of the debate, my colleagues will elaborate further on specific aspects of the agenda. Taken together, what do these shifts to our social compact mean? In fact, some ask, has the 4G team shifted to the left?

It is not so simple. Our governing approach is not so easy to characterise along the traditional political spectrum of left and right. After all, we have always strived to appeal to a broad base of Singaporeans. We have always taken care not to base our legitimacy on any narrow social group or class.

We also do not blindly copy or replicate the models of other countries. Even the first generation of PAP leaders, who began their political lives as democratic socialists, spoke of a "Socialism that Works" – for they did not want any part of what they already knew was failing in Europe and elsewhere.

The countries with more welfarist policies, in continental Europe and the Nordics have much higher levels of state-financed welfare provisions. Their governments typically spend above 40% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), compared to 18% in Singapore. To fund such high spending, they impose high income taxes, usually much higher than 30%, even for the middle-income groups, with Value-added Tax (VAT) or Goods and Services Tax (GST) taxes ranging from 20% to 25%.

Some may think this is a good model for Singapore, but from our point of view, from the Government's point of view, it is very clear: we do not intend to adopt such a model of comprehensive universal welfare. Instead, we will chart our own way forward, staying true to our core values. While we will indeed do more to strengthen social safety nets, we will move with prudence and discipline, and not end up inflicting heavy tax burdens on everyone. Today, our overall tax burden for the middle-income group is far lower than other advanced nations and we will strive to keep it that way.

More than that, we will ensure that our programmes achieve better outcomes for our people. In fact, we are already doing better than many other countries in areas like healthcare, education and housing; doing better not in terms of how much we spend, but in terms of outcomes – the value that we achieve from every dollar of public spending. We are doing better and we can keep on doing better.

That is the spirit and intent behind the shifts we are considering – be it skills and continuous learning, social empowerment, active ageing and retirement adequacy, or housing assurances. The changes will benefit Singaporeans from every walk of life – they will uplift the vulnerable and also advance the well-being of our broad middle.

In fact, among the more advanced nations, Singapore is one of the few where people in the middle have experienced large increases of incomes in the last 20 years. The middle-income group in Singapore now has higher real incomes – real incomes after netting off inflations – than in many other places; higher than the US and most European societies and well above that in other advanced Asian societies, like Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea.

We will continue to sustain real income growth for the middle. This is why economic growth is non-negotiable for us. We already know that our growth rates will gradually come down as our labour force expands more slowly and becomes older, but growth remains essential. If we do not grow the economic pie, there will be fewer jobs and less scope for social support. So, please do not be mistaken. This Government will and must always be pro-growth and pro-inclusivity. Securing our economic competitiveness will become more, not less, important in the next phase of Singapore. This is incumbent upon all of us, and upon my team: we will create good jobs and a good future for all Singaporeans.

Underlining our governing approach is the core ethic of individual effort and personal and family responsibility. We want Government actions to reinforce, not negate, individual and collective responsibility. We want Government actions to catalyse more involvement by other members of society – employers, unions, community groups and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Then we can all chip in and do our part collectively, to tackle inequality, rekindle social mobility and move forward together.

Sir, I believe the Opposition, and the Workers' Party (WP) in particular, broadly agrees with and supports the Government's policy directions. They want us to do more in certain areas, as we have heard from the speeches today and I am sure in the coming days, but there is general support for the moves that we have proposed.

But there is one fundamental difference. When we plan to spend more, the PAP Government will always tell you plainly how we propose to raise revenues and ensure that our Budget remains balanced over the medium-term. The Opposition has offered some revenue alternatives, but their sums do not add up. We do not need to go through the detailed arguments again. But without the GST, which the WP still does not support – and I am not even talking about the increase in GST, but the entire GST which the WP still does not support – we will face a huge funding gap. None of the alternatives that the WP has suggested will make up for the shortfall.

In this debate and over the course of the remaining term of Government, I look forward to hearing concrete alternatives from the Opposition – not just opportunistic or populist ideas to chip away, bit by bit, at the trust in Government, but a serious alternative agenda for an alternative government.

That is how politics in a first-world Parliament should work. I have said this before: I do not assume that the PAP will win the next General Election or that I will inevitably take over as Prime Minister. Every General Election from now on will be about who forms the Government; not just what percentage of the votes the PAP receives and how many seats the Opposition wins. As we develop into a mature democracy, we must have not just a serious Government, but also a serious Opposition that thinks carefully about what it will do as government. Where the Opposition have good ideas, or where they can make a contribution to the ideas for improving our country, we welcome them. But we ask that you be upfront about the realities and trade-offs we face as a country, and be honest about your plans, policies and intentions.

Mr Speaker, our world has changed; so too must our way of doing things. Our refreshed social compact will be our compass for the road ahead. Forward Singapore is a bold agenda, and it depends on all of us to realise. Though we will not see change overnight, we can each start to embrace the new social compact today.

If we all do this, we can be assured that we, too, will benefit when others feel a deeper sense of responsibility towards us. We can then sustain a virtuous circle of uplift, progress and confidence, and thus strengthen our solidarity and trust as a nation. The more we put into this new social compact, the more we will receive in return. And society as a whole, Singapore, will grow stronger and fairer; more just and more united.

Mr Speaker: Order. Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong.

4.45 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lawrence Wong): Thank you, Sir. Actually, I only have one more paragraph left. [Laughter.] But it is the most important paragraph because it is my final message to everyone.

Faced with the stark realities of a troubled world, my message to Singaporeans is simple: there is no challenge we cannot overcome; no obstacle we cannot deal with. Singapore can remain exceptional. We can keep the Singapore Story going. We can move forward together as one people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

4.46 pm

Ms Yeo Wan Ling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, while significant visibility has been afforded to matters of the economy and healthcare in the first session of the 14th Parliament and rightfully so, it is often the invisible social tenets that elude us – unnoticed. Nations globally are only realising now the true impact the crisis has left on social fabrics. In America, the erosion of authentic relationships between people has been dubbed the "friendship recession". In China, economic slowdown as a result of the pandemic has driven youths to "lie flat" or 躺平; and indeed, in Singapore, as we build a "new social compact" as a nation, many in our communities and in our neighbourhoods are picking up fragments left from the pandemic, to rebuild lives and livelihoods and to make sense of the post pandemic world.

Have we considered the invisible implications of COVID-19 on the social fabric of our nation? I propose, Mr Speaker, that these invisible impacts are most felt by those driven further invisible in our post-pandemic society. I would like to talk about three such profiles: first, our women workers doubling up as sole caregivers at home; two, our freelancers caught up in a precarious, ever-evolving gig world; and three, our vulnerable adults with special needs – invisible and voiceless.

Mr Speaker, today, women are not an invisible force in the workplace and indeed a force to be reckoned with. However, domestic and caregiving norms at home which have been in place for generations, have not caught up with these great strides in the workplace. Women in their dual roles, often in equal parts of working and of caregiving, are taken for granted and go unnoticed and underappreciated. As a result of the pandemic, the lines between these women's professional lives and domestic responsibilities have become even more blended.

Work from Home or in the COVID-19-era slang – WFH – was a word that was both celebrated and feared by our women workers. At NTUC, our sisters and unions have been pushing workplace norms to embrace flexible work arrangements (FWAs) of which WFH is an example of, for decades. FWAs can enhance workplace productivity and can allow companies to retain women workers in the workplace and attract women returners back; of which by the way, there are 240,000 women of economic age not in the workforce today.

COVID-19 created the opportunity for FWAs to be adopted widely, but it also brought into better focus, the challenges women workers and companies need to overcome for FWAs to continue to be adopted both widely as well as wisely.

The realities are that FWAs or otherwise, will not shift the burdens of caregiving from the shoulders of mothers, wives and daughters, should women still be culturally expected to be the sole or main caregivers at home while balancing their careers. More practical support must be given to help move the needle in shifting cultural caregiving norms and the Labour Movement is appreciative that our workers' suggestions of shared parental leave and increasing paternity leave have been accepted by our tripartite partners.

A wider scope for caregiving leave can also be considered, for our workers to be able to share caregiving duties outside of the typical parent, grandparent and child familial sets, to include family members such as uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces. Keep the number of caregiving leave days but allow for flexibility on who a worker can give care to.

Now that normalcy has been restored to most of the workforce, more workers are called back to serve their nine-to-fives in offices. Let us not lose the momentum we have made in the progress for FWAs in the past three years. FWAs are a critical workplace philosophy to help our women workers balance their dual duties. The Labour Movement thanks the Tripartite Partnership in supporting and legislating in the near future, our workers' rights for individual FWA requests to be considered by employers. The Labour Movement on our part, will continue to support and push for companies to redesign jobs and to ensure FWAs are win-win and sustainable for businesses and workers.

Another group of workers who have seen much changes since the onset of the pandemic are our freelancers and, in particular, platform workers who are the lifeblood of Singapore's gig economy. Having transformed the way we eat, shop and move and especially so in the thick of the pandemic, our freelance gig economy has grown in the past three years. Yet, as a community, they still bear invisible risks we do not fathom as a nation. These include risks to their physical safety in transit when delivering food or other logistical requirements, but also concerns over the adequacy of their retirement savings, health safety nets and housing.

While the Government will continue to work with these platforms to ensure equitable outcomes for platform workers, Singaporeans should also bear in mind these invisible risks borne by platform workers the next time they tap into their services.

As a progressive Labour Movement, the NTUC and our associations – National Taxi Association (NTA), National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), and National Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) have been engaging our ever growing freelance and self-employed community and garnering support to address their concerns with our Tripartite Partners – the ride hail platforms, delivery platforms, taxi companies, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the CPF Board, and the list goes on.

The move from pandemic to endemic has certainly brought further light to the precariousness of our riders and drivers' livelihoods. As business models shift and adjust with the gradual opening of our economy and borders, this should not be done without due consideration that these moves have on the livelihoods of our platform workers.

To a platform owner, the impact of a rise in platform fees of less than 50 cents, could be minimal in consolidated amounts, but to the driver or to the rider, the accompanying decrease in ride or delivery orders, will mean decreased earnings and less food on the table for their families, sometimes even for weeks. A poorly executed app update resulting in a few hours of glitching will impact earnings and even the safety of our riders and drivers.

The Labour Movement has been championing the cause of our freelance and self-employed for many years now and in the face of a fast-evolving gig landscape, the Tripartite Partnership has formed the platform workers Advisory Committee to look into the protection and representation of our gig platform workers. This is an important move and draws visibility and, more importantly, public awareness and discourse to the issues that this evolving and growing group of workers face on a daily basis to their livelihoods and safety.

Our drivers and riders are a proud, independent group of Singaporean workers. And I call on all Singaporeans to work with the Labour Movement and Tripartite Partnership on defining a fair, dignified livelihood for our platform workers in the new normal.

On dignified lives, this brings me to the last group and arguably, the most vulnerable group of adult Singaporeans living among us. For those among us who are parents, do you remember the looks shot at you as you might have brought your wailing infant to a crowded mall, or worse, a fully occupied plane? You may have, on some occasions, muttered to yourself, "Just a few more months of this to get through". For some parents out there with children with special needs, they never really find solace from public scrutiny, even as their children reach adulthood.

Mr Speaker, though presented conjecturally, many parents of adults with special needs are no strangers to this line of thinking. On my block visits in Punggol Shore, I encounter a good number of cases of adults with special needs – some of them undiagnosed, cooped up at home, rarely stepping into the outside world having fostered no real sense of independence.

When I speak with their parents or siblings, I am often met with worries about how their ward might continue to upkeep a standard of living and quality of life should they pass on. Sure, state-centric solutions might exist, but all parents would wish upon their children a life of safety, choice and protection, at least one that goes beyond the confines of an institution.

I would like to share the story of one of my residents, Mr Y, who has sadly passed on, but left behind his wife and a 21-year-old son from his first marriage who is on the autism spectrum. I met with Mr Y when he contacted my office and asked me to visit him at home as he was too sick to leave his home. I remember Mr Y laying on his sofa when I saw him in his flat; he was very ill, and his stomach was painfully distended.

Even though he was relieved to see me and smiled a lot, he looked like he was in the jaws of death. Mr Y had last stage cancer and his doctor told him that he only had weeks to live. Mr Y told me that he was in pain and the only reason why he was still holding on was because he did not know what to do to ensure that his son and his wife continued to enjoy a good standard of living after he passes on. He was worried as his son has no language skills and his wife is a foreigner; and while she is a full-time caregiver to his son, after his passing, he wished for her to find work. He was also adamant that his son would be able to live and age in place in the flat that he owned and not to be confined to a home or institution. Mr Y was estranged from his family and there were no additional supporting networks for him. He had no will, no Lasting Power of Attorney; he did not even have a "Plan B" on how to ferry his son should the bus fail to turn up that day to bring his son to daycare.

After listening to him, we knew we were running against time. Together with my volunteers, we spent the next five days setting up the necessary paperwork for him, visiting banks, getting the lawyers in, setting up a Special Needs Trust. We even arranged for job interviews for his wife and paid attention to his final funeral wishes. More importantly, we knew we had to set up the necessary safety nets for his son, while Mr Y was still of sound mind. Thankfully, things went smoothly and through community contacts, we managed to get things in order for him. He passed on that night after he signed the trust agreement, which actually took the longest to set up. That was two weeks after our initial meet-up at his sofa in his home. He was only then 58.

Mr Y left a very long-lasting impression on me. His story is not unique among caregivers and guardians of special needs adults. Through understanding his wishes for his son and the hoops we had to jump through to coordinate the safety nets needed to protect Mr Y's son, I know that we need to do more for our special needs adults and their caregivers. Mr Y envisaged a warm model of care for his son and this was about his son living in the community he grew up well into his later years. It is, well, a care model around a village more than it is around an institution. What this means is that our adults with special needs would be able to live in a safe and dignified manner, fulfilled lives in their communities with the support of other members of the community.

I believe that Singaporeans have what it takes to be that village for adults with special needs. No institution can give this great an assurance to families of our special needs adults than the community itself.

Mr Speaker, what is unseen is often ignored and what is ignored often suffers. Together, this need not be true for the invisible slices of Singaporeans we have formed a blind spot, as a result of the pandemic. Strengthening the social compact begins with kindness and kindness begins with putting ourselves in the shoes of others. As I continue to tell the stories of those I champion, I will call on the Government to effect change and renew the kindness of Singaporeans to effect lasting change. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Fahmi Aliman.

4.58 pm

Mr Mohd Fahmi Aliman (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, today I would like to talk about three important topics that are integral to the building of a cohesive and resilient society in the face of challenges.

As we all know, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to our nation. The rising costs of living, coupled with the economic impacts on the pandemic, have added further strain to many Singaporean households.

Despite these challenges, I firmly believe that as a nation, we have the strength and resilience to overcome them. It is now more important than ever that we come together as a society and work together, towards a shared vision for the future.

I will focus on three key areas that I believe are critical: one, the importance of Mother Tongue languages; two, strengthening the role of the M³'s Focus Area Four (FA4) in supporting vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community; and thirdly, building trust and prospects for our workforce.

By embracing our cultural diversity, supporting vulnerable communities and investing in our workforce, we can build a society that is both resilient and prosperous.

Allow me to touch on each point in greater detail in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Mother Tongue languages are a cornerstone of Singapore's multiracial and multicultural society. They provide a vital link to our diverse heritage and cultural identity. In Singapore, each ethnic group has its own Mother Tongue language, such as Mandarin for the Chinese community, Tamil for the Indian community and Malay language for the Malay community. According to the 2020 Census of Population, 74.3% of Singaporeans are proficient in their respective Mother Tongue languages. This data demonstrates the significant level of proficiency and emphasises the importance of these languages in our society.

In addition to serving as a communication tool within our respective ethnic communities, Mother Tongue languages have played a critical role in building social cohesion and national unity in Singapore. They have helped to foster a sense of belonging and shared identity among Singaporeans of different ethnicities, contributing to the country's success in maintaining social harmony.

Beyond their cultural significance, research has shown that being bilingual or multilingual offers cognitive benefits such as enhanced memory, cognitive flexibility and decision-making skills. For example, a study by the University of California found that bilingual individuals performed better in cognitive tests than monolingual individuals, highlighting the cognitive advantages of being bilingual. Thus, the cognitive benefits of being bilingual or multilingual are numerous, making it a valuable skill to have in today's globalized world.

As a Malay Singaporean, I can personally attest to the significance of the Malay language in my daily life. It is not only the language I use to communicate with my family members, but it also allows me to actively participate in the wider Malay community. For example, when attending cultural events such as Hari Raya Aidilfitri or weddings, the ability to converse in Malay allows me to connect with my fellow Malay Singaporeans on a deeper level and better appreciate our shared cultural heritage.

Given their cultural and cognitive benefits, it is crucial for the Government to continue investing in the preservation and promotion of Mother Tongue languages in Singapore. This includes ensuring that Mother Tongue language education is accessible to all and providing resources to support its learning. By recognising the value and significance of Mother Tongue languages, we can continue to build a society that embraces diversity, promotes social cohesion and values our shared cultural heritage together.

Mr Speaker, the Labour Movement has kept faith with workers through the decades, including COVID-19, and continues to break new ground in areas that contribute to Singapore’s economic recovery and transformation. This includes initiatives to support marginalised groups in the community amid economic recovery and transformation. One such example is Focus Area (FA) Workgroup within the ambit of M³. FA4 is an important framework that seeks to provide support and assistance to Malay/Muslim workers. FA4 is especially significant in today's context as the country continues to grapple with the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because the pandemic has disproportionately affected certain groups, including those in low-wage jobs, gig workers and mature workers, among others. FA4 plays a crucial role in ensuring that these vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community have access to the necessary support and resources to navigate these difficult times.

Through a referral process, these workers are channelled to multiple agencies for assistance, such as NTUC's e2i and LearningHub, as well as the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI). By doing so, jobseekers are given access to job placement opportunities and skills upgrading courses, which can help improve their chances of securing better employment opportunities.

As the Malay proverb goes; if you do not ask, you will get lost; if you do not row, your boat will drift aimlessly. FA4 is an important framework that seeks to provide support and assistance to vulnerable groups in the Malay/Muslim community, especially in today's challenging economic and social climate. By addressing the unique challenges faced by vulnerable groups such as platform workers, women, mature workers and youth, FA4 can help create a more inclusive and equitable society. This is important in the social compact of Singapore as it seeks to build a more resilient and cohesive community for the future.

FA4 is just one example that illustrates how NTUC and M³ are committed to ensuring that workers are upskilling and adapting to the changing nature of work. As we look towards the future, it is evident that trust will continue to be a crucial component in shaping the workforce landscape. This is especially true at the tripartite level, where our ability to work together has enabled us to make significant progress on the national economic agenda. As we move forward, we need to maintain this trust and continue to collaborate to support workers and ensure that they are equipped with the necessary skills to succeed in the ever-evolving job market.

Building trust with the workforce is a crucial factor in the success of any organisation. A high level of trust at the workplace fosters a positive work environment where everyone feels valued and supported, and this leads to a more engaged and productive workforce. At the national level, trust is strengthened by working together to create good opportunities for our workers and investing in training to ensure that workers build up resilience in their careers. Over the years, the tripartite partners in Singapore have made significant efforts to support the workforce, especially those who were badly affected during crises.

We acknowledge that there are still gaps that need to be addressed, especially in supporting vulnerable groups. This is why we launched the #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations, which aims to engage workers from all walks of life to collectively define the workers' compact and hear their views on the future of work. Through these conversations, the Labour Movement hopes to build a stronger connection with workers and better understand their perspectives. Such feedback will also contribute towards charting our longer-term strategies in the road ahead.

Looking to the future, the Labour Movement recognises the need to “future-proof” our workforce. As underscored by Deputy Secretary-General Mr Desmond Tan, one such effort by the Labour Movement is the Company Training Committees (CTCs). These CTCs involve unions and employers working closely together to identify skills gaps and look into scaling up on reskilling, training and career progression for their workers. In this vein, we want to form more CTCs to help businesses build a skilled and adaptable workforce.

Building trust with the workforce is critical and the tripartite partners in Singapore have made significant efforts in the past to support workers during challenging times. Presently, the Labour Movement's #EveryWorkerMatters Conversations campaign has sought to listen to the voices of workers. Looking to the future, the Labour Movement recognises the importance of helping workers build resilience in their careers as well as a skilled and adaptable workforce. To do so, we plan to form more CTCs. However, more needs to be done to support vulnerable workers and youth and it is a call to action for tripartite partners to continue this trust-building effort with workers. By working together, we can create a workforce that is skilled, adaptable and resilient in the face of challenges.

(In English): To conclude, as Secretary-General Mr Ng Chee Meng of NTUC, said, and I quote, "As the voice of workers, we at NTUC want to forge a new workers' compact, one defined collectively by the working people in Singapore."

This quote encapsulates the theme of today's speech, which is the importance of recognising and valuing diverse perspectives and building collaborative partnerships in achieving progress and success as a nation. The importance of Mother Tongue languages, the role of M³'s FA4 alongside PWM in supporting vulnerable groups in society and the other existing initiatives are all critical components of a cohesive and resilient society.

By recognising the value and significance of our diverse cultural heritage, investing in the support and resources of our vulnerable groups and building trust with our workforce, we can continue to progress and thrive as a nation. Let us continue to work together to build a Singapore that embraces diversity, promotes social cohesion and values the well-being and success of all its citizens. I stand in support of the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

5.11 pm

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join the debate.

The global workforce has come under considerable strain. The Singapore workforce is also similarly affected. These strains are caused by increased international competition, outsourcing of business functions, generational transitions in the workforce and the speed of technological advancement. COVID-19 has also vastly changed the way we work.

Many jobs are created while many are lost. The latest Randstad survey reported that 48% of respondents in Singapore are worried about losing their jobs. This anxiety is despite significant labour tightness. As uncertainty becomes more pervasive, we need to restore confidence by addressing underlying structural causes of such an anxiety.

As President Halimah said, we will strengthen social safety nets so that in every stage of life, Singaporeans can better cope with uncertainties and look forward with confidence.

It is impossible to shield Singaporeans from all such vagaries if we are to keep our economy open. An open economy is our livelihood after all. But we can certainly enable Singaporeans by pushing for training and reskilling and ensuring that all our workers are well-equipped to rebound and capture opportunities in the brighter areas of the economy. And if they do fall, they can bounce back quickly.

The economic outlook globally is more volatile and uncertain. Transformation cycles are shorter. Skills are becoming obsolete faster. Researchers have found that 37% of the average job skills have been replaced just over the past five years.

ChatGPT marks the first significant milestone that generative artificial intelligence (AI) is placed in the hands of many companies and consumers. Companies are racing to incorporate such capabilities into their work. It also heralds the acceleration of the loss of certain jobs, such as lower-level analysts and research jobs.

Those slowest to react to such changes stand to lose the most. And out of these affected individuals, some segments of our workforce are in greater danger.

I would like to focus my speech on three segments of the workforce.

Firstly, our Singaporeans born in the 1960s to 1970s. They will be in their late-40s and 50s now; some of them are even in their 60s. This segment of individuals joined the workforce when Singapore was still in early stages of economic development. Many of them sacrificed their education to support their families. They have tended to work in one company, industry or function. Some have not upgraded their skills since entering the workforce. Many of them have risen through the ranks over the years in technical and managerial jobs. When faced with the need to switch jobs, they tended to see a sharp drop in income.

Another group of vulnerable individuals comprise our self-employed persons (SEPs). We have seen the disproportionate impact COVID-19 had on SEPs. Through NTUC’s assistance in administering the Self-Employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), we are fully aware of the imperative to strengthen financial and career resilience for SEPs. Because of irregular contributions to CPF, it was also difficult to dispense loss of income support.

Of course, next, are our older workers. They not only face difficulties in landing new jobs but they also find it more difficult to acquire new skillsets. They also face the perennial and perhaps trickiest issue of workforce ageism, which requires addressing of mindsets.

As President Halimah also rightly highlighted, it is important for us to concentrate our efforts to improve social safety nets.

At this point, I was pondering about Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's observations and suggestions on support to our needy Singaporeans. I agree that we must continue to work our hardest to help our needy Singaporeans and work must not stop.

But the suggestion of having a single poverty line has inherent problems. It can have an unintended cliff effect where those below the line get the support but those above do not. The line also misses out on other issues that needy families face, for example, trying family circumstances, ill health and job readiness. It casts undue intention on just the financial circumstances of needy families. Experience from other countries has also shown that it is hard to simplify to just one figure and there is a tendency for people to want to stay below that figure; not too many of them, but certainly, there are.

I fully agree that our poor need extra help, and we can do better, and we must do better. Thus, our policies are shaped to give more to those who have less. Their needs are also complex. Therefore, we have many assistance schemes with different ways of helping for different outcomes. And there is also some sense to have separate criteria for different schemes. For example, ComCare is for poverty alleviation, supporting them in their needs versus Workfare, which is to help workers level up, tackling some inequality.

In my work as the Mayor of Northeast Community Development Council (CDC), I have often hoped to simplify the 60 schemes that the Northeast CDC run. But the more that we walk the ground, the more we realise that targeted solutions will work best and we cannot shine away from assessments. Not only does it reflect our prudence of responsibilities to public resources, it allows us to size the assistance to the needy appropriately. Therefore, an approach of providing support based on the varied needs of Singaporeans and their families might work better in a singular poverty line. It is rigorous in its assessment and flexible to the needs of Singaporeans.

I agree that documentation can be a burden. I struggle with that in my work in CDC too. And we must continue to make applications simpler. It is good for both Social Service Office (SSO) staff and applicants. With greater digitisation in the Government, we can already see the benefits of streamlining and we will, and I think, can do more on that front.

While we have different schemes with different criteria, what is most important is to make sure that while we streamline the application process, that the schemes are also effective. Our SSO officers work hard on the ground to do this, and I do feel, maybe I thought it incorrectly, but the way that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim characterised what they do might not be entirely fair. They seek not to take away the lifelines of the residents they serve.

Our SSO officers work hard to help our needy residents. I am extremely proud of them and knew a lot of them through the work in ComLink. In fact, many of them take on duties beyond what I required of them because of the multifaceted issues facing lower-income families. I certainly know my Tampines and Sengkang SSO officers. They built strong relationships with our ComLink families, testimony to the dedication and good work. But I acknowledge there will always be gaps in our schemes with the families or residents who need help in the Northeast District which includes Sengkang, I will do my best to help them as Mayor of Northeast CDC.

We must not also forget that helping more, which we must do, also requires that we earn more to pay for it. It is easy to say to do more, but it is much harder to pay more.

Good growth, good jobs and good wages are clearly important to helping needy residents better and more sustainably. In our new social compact and strategy, we hope to mobilise more support from all of community: corporates, charities, volunteers and philanthropists.

I have seen how donors, corporate donors, went from just pure financial support to volunteering personally to solve ground problems. Our Northeast CDC WeCare programme supports thousands of families, above the ComCare financial qualifying lines. It was funded by donations from religious organisations, temples, churches and mosques and funds from CDC. Only when we own the problems and solutions can we do more and build a stronger Singapore.

Next, I would like to suggest a couple of areas of focus to help Singaporeans to be able to rebound from tough times in two distinct phases: pre-loss of jobs and post-loss of jobs.

Firstly, on the pre-loss of jobs, we are experiencing a tight labour market now. With the tightness, actually, our median gross monthly income has increased in 2022 by more than $400. However, such a tight labour market also creates an environment whereby future-proofing opportunities may be put in the backseat. In this volatile economy, the key is to reskill to remain relevant in the workforce and to keep abreast of the changes.

The first suggestion I have is that we can help employers to allow workers to reskill while being gainfully employed. One of the ways is to increase absentee payroll funding and the overall $100,000 annual cap for companies. This will allow companies to send workers for training while being subsidised for such costs.

The costs of hiring temporary staff or replacement staff are increasing. The related costs of hiring and onboarding staff are also not insignificant. Hence, we can consider increasing absentee payroll funding support based on the age of employees, with older workers receiving greater support. Workers in vulnerable and sunset sectors can also be considered for enhanced absentee payroll support.

Currently, there is a fixed level of support for SSG-funded certifiable courses at $4.50 per hour. The organisation's cap is also limited to S$100,000 per calendar year. We should increase this cap, considering the increase in overall business costs. Companies sending a larger number of mature workers for training should also qualify for a higher cap. Companies will be incentivised to hire mature workers and our mature workers will be incentivised to train.

Next, on improving the post-loss of job support.

Firstly, we can introduce unemployment support for workers who are involuntarily forced to leave their jobs, such as retrenchment, something that my colleague, Member of Parliament, Mr Patrick Tay has mentioned. This support can be linked to training and job search to preserve the work ethos of the workforce. This builds on the principles behind our Workfare and COVID-19 Recovery Grant. These are important Singaporean policy characteristics. We must not forget that the longer one stays out of the workforce, the poorer employment outcomes will be. Thus, our system of unemployment support should taper off with time to ensure that individuals remain incentivised to re-enter the workforce.

Next, we can also enhance the Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). We can increase allowance and income support during the conversion process as workers will still need to care for their families. We can also extend the enhanced CCPs to our SEPs. Many SEPs in the profession are in there because of their need for more discretionary income. Some of them do want to go on to other careers, hopefully, more permanent ones.

The next move is to extend career trials to SEPs as well. Currently, SEPs will not be eligible for career trials under the existing eligibility requirements. Could the Government look into expanding the eligibility and for those considering a job switch to undertake formal employment?

While training and reskilling is an important feature of the nation's work ethos, it may be demoralising for workers to continually train but unable to secure employment. This is especially so for older workers whose runway is much shorter. While we cannot completely remove such risks, we can moderate the risk by having more Place-and-Train programmes. We can do so starting from the Public Service ecosystem, including the suppliers to the Public Service. More outreach efforts to potential host companies could be undertaken to increase the scope of such programmes and the Labour Movement stands ready to assist. Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The working environment today is very different from what it used to be. The pace of economic transformation will be accelerated as geopolitical risks become more volatile. Our country and workforce will also be affected.

We must actively strengthen the social safety net to give Singaporeans the confidence to move forward at every stage of their lives. We can promote and strengthen training programmes to ensure that Singaporeans have the skills that they need and capture job opportunities.

Workers and businesses that are relatively slow to respond to changes will be hardest hit. Therefore, we have to prepare for the work environment before and after job loss so that Singaporeans can bounce back quickly from the tough times and seize job opportunities.

For the unemployed, I hope that the Government will help them receive training during unemployment, such as the Career Conversation Programmes (CCPs). I also call on the Government to increase subsidies for the unemployed during this period.

Job opportunities remain key to improving the quality of life for the people. The Government and the unions will do their best to help Singaporeans achieve this to ensure that all Singaporeans will not be left behind. Let us work together to create a better future.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, we have continued to strengthen our social safety nets. With an increasingly volatile global economy, we must help Singaporeans cope with the uncertainties and enable us to have the confidence to forge ahead.

Good growth, good jobs and strong social safety nets are key to helping Singaporeans navigate the vagaries and vicissitudes of a rapidly changing economy. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

5.25 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, if I may clarify some points that the Member has just pointed out?

Mr Speaker: Keep it to clarifications. Thank you.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Thank you. The first is the Member, Mr Desmond Choo, had pointed out that there is a cliff effect. But if I am not wrong, this applies to all lines already in place. And I wonder if the Member is suggesting that we should therefore encourage the Government, by the same token, to remove all thresholds that they currently have because of the same cliff effects?

The Member also suggested that there were many schemes for many outcomes. And, of course, I agree with this specific tailoring. But still, it does not strike me as precluding a clear benchmark for which we can tag all these idiosyncratic needs to a clear benchmark line.

Just a third point, Mr Speaker, is that he mentioned that SSO officers have worked hard to support residents, including in Sengkang and, of course, I should clarify that I agree with this. But it is clear that they are constrained by the system. For example, the three- to six-month limit on short- and medium-term assistance is not decided by them but by MSF.

So, my question goes back to him. If the Member may clarify, how having an official poverty line makes it harder to provide tailored solutions? It is like saying that just because you seek this, you set a passing mark of 50%, but we cannot help a student to actually score higher than that —

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Lim, you can keep it more compact, please.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I end here.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Desmond Choo: Mr Speaker, the Member, if I can recap, has three clarifications? I think what he meant, if I get him correctly, when he asked for a singular poverty line, that there is a line cutting across all schemes by which different schemes will be benchmarked too.

If not, then why would he be asking for a one singular poverty line rather than the current system that we have that will have different lines or different qualifying criteria for different purposes? And I think that, in our position, it is still better to adjust and be flexible to the needs of the ground, making sure that we size support appropriately for different schemes and not have a "one-size-fits-all" scheme.

I do agree with him that even if you have a singular line, it is not mutually exclusive. And I am glad that he agrees with that; regardless of whether you have a single line or not, you still must understand that the needs of the grounds are complex and you do need to have targeted schemes for targeted problems. That is one part that, first, I wish to clarify.

And the second one is whether they are constrained by the general policies. I cannot speak on behalf of MSF. But what I can speak on behalf is the schemes that CDC run. In the cases that I have seen, I have seen residents who have gotten support beyond three to six months, some even longer.

We have also provided our residents through schemes with CDC through our WeCare support. Many of them were from Sengkang. So, I think it is not true that the MSF scheme necessarily handicaps or that we constrain our officers in the help they can dispense. I also want to extend once again that if the Member has families in Sengkang that require assistance, I will be more than happy to assist them.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: I promise to be brief. And just to quote exactly what I said in my speech, which was, I suggested and I quote, "to peg all thresholds for Government assistance, especially ComCare to this line or higher but never lower." So, the idea is that you would have a clear benchmark to map it to and you could have multiples to allow for these various tailored solutions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Wei Neng.

5.30 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, in her address, President Halimah Yacob spoke about strengthening the social safety nets so that at every stage of life, Singaporeans can better cope with uncertainties and look forward with confidence. I totally agree that this is very important and we have to pay particular attention to low-income families, especially those with young children.

Last August, MSF announced that a one-person household on the ComCare Long Term Assistance scheme will receive a cash assistance of $640 per month or an increase of 6.25% from the previous cash amount of $600 per month. The qualifying criteria for Short Term Financial Assistance remain at a household income of not more than $1,900 per month or a per capita income of not more than $650 per month. There is no adjustment to the qualifying criteria despite a high inflation rate over the last two years.

We understand that MSF has allocated about $601 million in its 2023 Budget to administer long-term and short-term financial assistance to vulnerable Singaporeans. But the question is whether this amount is sufficient?

To have a better comparison, we can look at how other advanced countries are providing cash benefits to assist vulnerable families. The Organization for Economic and Cooperation Development (OECD) countries spent about an average of 7% of their GDP on cash benefits. As Singapore is not a welfare state, it may not be fair to compare us with most of the OECD countries. Perhaps, we can look at those closer to home, such as South Korea. South Korea spent about 3% of its GDP on public social expenditure in cash benefits and how is it compared to Singapore?

MSF will be spending $601 million on long- and short-term financial assistance, including the manpower costs to administer the ComCare Assistance. This represents about 0.6% of Singapore's 2023 Budget or only 0.1% of Singapore's GDP. Now, 0.1% of GDP appears small, compared to 3% of GDP South Korea spent on cash benefits for public social expenditure.

I am not advocating that we have to increase the ComCare expenditure by 30 times to match South Korea's. However, it is important that our support for low-income families keep pace with inflation. Singaporeans have been very much affected by the 14-year high inflation rate. We feel it every day as we buy our food, coffee, and groceries and pay our bills. According to an August 2022 study last year, it is the low-income households earning less than $2,500 a month which are the hardest hit, as they spend almost all their income every month.

Given the high inflation rate for the past two years and the expected slow economic growth this year, there is scope to help families cope by easing the qualifying criteria for help schemes across the board. For example, the qualifying criteria for ComCare short-term assistance can be revised by 10% so that applicants with per capita monthly household income of not more than $715 can qualify. Likewise, HDB rental flat qualifying criteria can also be eased by 10% so that applicants with less than $1,650 monthly income can apply.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has indicated that it is “almost a certainty” that inflation will be higher and longer. That is, high inflation will be the norm for quite some time. To better help the low-income families, I would like to suggest that all the Government assistance schemes could incorporate an inflation component so that both the qualifying criteria and the quantum of assistance rendered could be adjusted annually in tandem with inflation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, low-income families receiving financial assistance are living in much uncertainty, as described by Ms Cindy Ng in her article in The Straits Times last Saturday. We do not want inflation to add another layer of uncertainty for the lower-income families.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

5.34 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

As Deputy Chair of the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) for Education, and Culture, Community and Youth, I will be focusing my speech on these areas as covered in the President’s Address. I would also like to declare my interest as CEO of an educational organisation.

Mr Speaker, I become an educator more than 20 years ago because I believed, as I do strongly believe still, in the transformative power of education.

Education can unlock potential; it can allow a child to transcend his or her humble beginnings to achieve success; it can inspire a mid-career switch from discouragement to determination; and it can empower a generation to believe that there is nothing that they cannot do, on account of their gender or ethnicity.

Education, however, is more than just what is taught or learnt in formal, institutionalised settings. Indeed, as the writer Mark Twain once said, “Never let school interfere with your education.” For true education to be effective, we need to look at it from across all the multiple stakeholders in our society.

Families, employers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), social groups and communities all have their part to play, be it via advice and guidance you would give to your child or a policy that you would implement in your organisation.

So, I would argue, as we move forward into this post-COVID-19 era, an era that is probably as uncertain and unsure as any before it, that it will be the education of our society that will be crucial to Singapore’s next phase of development and that this education will not be a whole-of-Government, but rather a whole-of-community effort.

We live in an era where we are bombarded with information constantly and consistently. However, unless we have a way to process this information, it remains purely that – “information” that does not serve much use.

Education used to be about helping to turn that information into knowledge. So, if information was just random facts, education helped transform it into knowledge, that is, the information now made some sense and it was something that we could use.

However, the assumption then was that just because you knew something, you could put that knowledge to good use and actually do something. And, hence, it evolved into skills. So, now it was not so much about what you knew but what you could do.

So, I believe, indeed, that one of the key objectives of education should focus on what we can do rather than on what you know. There is no point amassing degrees and certificates if you ultimately cannot perform in terms of the skills that you need to deliver.

However, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that we should also aim to go beyond skills and to strive for the attainment of competencies as the ultimate end-goal of education. If skills are what you can do, then competencies are how you do it. And these are competencies that we should emphasise to ensure that our students, workers and people stay relevant for the future.

The OECD Learning Compass 2030 has identified three “transformative competencies” that students and learners need in order to contribute to and thrive in our world and to shape a better future. These are: creating new value; reconciling tensions and dilemmas; and taking responsibility.

Creating new value focuses on innovation and creative dynamism of thinking on how one can apply methods, processes and techniques in real-world and practical settings to either solve existing or emerging challenges, while working towards the betterment of community and society.

Our system has had a long history of taking a fairly safe and established route to attain the results that we have been judged on. Hence, the obsession in the past with 10-year series and sample examination papers to see how we would perform in terms of being able to attain a particular set of results.

Students and learners who aim to create new value have got to be courageously curious and regularly push the boundaries and challenge the status quo. I believe that we can take steps in this direction by not just encouraging our students, but also our educators and even our employers, to be courageously curious as well so that they can create new value for their students, learners and employees.

The ability to reconcile tensions and dilemmas sees students and learners being able to apply themselves in real-life scenarios by taking into account seemingly contradictory viewpoints and opinions and opposing concepts in formulating potential solutions to situations in the real world.

Real life is messy; real life is uncertain; real life requires you to work in the grey. For our students to develop this competency, I would suggest that we increase the focus on formative assessments, such as coursework, and less on summative assessments like examinations. And let us have the courage to apply this to that mother of all examinations, the PSLE.

I have made this point before at the previous Motion of Thanks to the President in 2020. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we scrap the PSLE per se. But what I would like to surface again for consideration is to urge the Ministry of Education (MOE) that has done great work so far in being progressive towards the PSLE and looking at different ways of scoring and so on. But I would like to urge MOE to see how they can make each Primary 6 student a final combination of coursework and their PSLE examination score.

This combination of coursework and examination is already practised in many other programmes, such as the International Baccalaureate (IB), and I believe that we can apply a similar concept to the final Primary 6 students’ grade instead of making it purely about a high-stakes one-shot examination.

Third, the competency of taking responsibility is a powerful lifelong concept that encourages students and learners to connect it to the ability to reflect on and evaluate their own actions in light of their individual experiences and also in their collective exposure to the world around them.

Taking responsibility means that students and learners are proactive and focused in dealing with societal and environmental challenges and issues that present themselves, and the emphasis is not on waiting for “the Government” or “someone else” to do it, but to show initiative, be accountable and take responsibility in dealing with the matter at hand. In short, own it.

The MOE Addendum to the President’s Address presented by Minister Chan Chun Sing talks about a “collective responsibility”, and I could not agree more with the Minister.

Just as all of us have a part to play in shaping and strengthening our social compact, every stakeholder – the Government, educators, students, parents, employers – all need to work together also to ensure that we contribute to the development of students and learners who have the competencies to take on the challenges of the next phase of our nation’s development.

Before I move on to the next part of my speech, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also thank all of our educators – from our preschool educators to our primary and secondary school teachers, our polytechnic lecturers, our university academics, our trainers, those who work in continuing education – for the great work that they are doing and that they continue to do in the growth and development of our people.

I would now like to move on to the second part of my speech, Mr Speaker, that talks about the trifecta of diversity, equity and inclusion, and why I feel that they are critical to Singapore moving forward.

By its composition, Singapore is remarkable for its diversity. We have four major ethnic groups and Singapore’s inter-religious organisation (IRO) oversees 10 religions in our country. When you further divide the ethnic groups into sub-groups, such as the Teochews, Hokkiens, Cantonese and so on for the Chinese; or Tamils, Malayalees, Punjabis and so on for the Indians, then we truly have a rich palette of cultures not just co-existing but thriving together in peace and harmony.

This is truly something unique and special and is due, in large part, to the many policies that, while not perfect, were critical and crucial in ensuring that the diverse groups in Singapore learnt to live together in one common community, especially in Singapore’s early days.

Indeed, a look around this august Chamber would be a wonderful reflection of the diversity that I am referring to. In terms of age, gender, ethnicity, religion and other demographics, I would argue that we have a good representation of different Singaporeans here. Again, while the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) policy might be criticised, I would argue that the diversity in this Chamber is a positive result of that.

The one area I feel that we could do better would be to see how we can work on a greater diversity and representation in the Public Service leadership.

I believe that some progress has been made over the years in terms of increased gender diversity. However, it would seem that we could do better in terms of greater ethnic diversity in Public Service leadership, especially at the senior levels.

I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, that we should resort to tokenism or to just have someone in a position because he or she is of a particular ethnicity.

However, if the Government is one of our largest employers and if the senior public leaders are responsible for formulating key policies that would be responsible for taking Singapore forward into the next few decades and beyond, then I would hope there could be more ethnic diversity among the Permanent Secretaries, Deputy Permanent Secretaries, Statutory Board Chief Executives and Deputy Chief Executives, as well as other senior leaders in the Uniformed Services in a manner that would be more representative of the ethnic mix of Singapore society.

Greater diversity in Public Service leadership would not just result in diverse perspectives, less groupthink and a richer quality of strategic decisions; it also introduces role models that Public Service officers of every background can relate to and look up to. I sincerely hope that this is something that the Government can look into when formulating its Public Service leadership strategy.

Mr Speaker, I believe the concept of equality is important. Indeed, it is mentioned in our nation’s pledge that we believe that our society should be a democratic one based on “justice and equality”. And I could not agree more. In this regard, equality is important and crucial, but we must also take this in a particular context because equality is about being equal in status, rights and opportunities and making sure that individuals or groups are given the same resources or rights to other opportunities.

However, I think that we should also seek to embed equity as something that guides us in our journey forward as a progressive and caring community. If equality is about everyone getting the same thing, then equity is recognising that not everyone has got the same means and resources. And for us to progress as a community, we have to see how different groups and individuals are provided with what they need rather than be given the same thing as everybody else.

In this regard, those in our community who need more should be given more, especially from those who can afford more. This is something that the Government has been moving progressively towards in their more nuanced and differentiated taxation and redistribution policies over the years. I would encourage not just the Government to continue with this approach but also for our fellow Singaporeans and members of our community to develop and lead their own initiatives in this area as well.

If equality sets the foundation of creating an equal playing field, then equity levels out the playing field by identifying disparities to ensure that everyone has what they need to achieve success.

This is something that I strongly believe in and it is my hope that even as equality remains a core pillar of our democratic society, the concept of equity will become embedded not just into the core of our community, but into our consciousness as well.

As the inclusion strategist Verna Miles once said, "Diversity is being invited to the party, inclusion is being asked to dance." It is not just about celebrating diversity in our community, institutions and organisations. We should also continuously endeavour to be inclusive by involving all those diverse groups and individuals in many ways and at multiple levels in genuine and open engagement.

For example, in schools and institutions – I shift the focus back to education once again – let us actively promote inclusion by involving students from different backgrounds and with different capabilities too, so that they can learn how to learn and how to work together.

While it is good, for example, to have dedicated schools to cater to those with special and unique learning needs, I hope that we can continue to work towards more integrative inclusive models where we can have students with differentiated learning needs studying together with those with more neurotypical backgrounds.

Learning to care for your fellow student starts that journey towards developing empathy, kindness, compassion and generosity which, in turn, teaches you to care for your colleague, your neighbour and even a stranger in the future. This, I believe, will see us not only moving forward together, but doing so in a manner that reflects our commitment to being a kinder, caring and compassionate Singapore where – to echo Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong – it is less about "I", "me" and "my" and more about "we", "us" and "ours". With that, I end my speech in support of the Motion of Thanks.

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan Wu Meng.

5.48 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. The world order is changing. Some of these changes are once in a generation, some might say once in a century. Not just the relationships between the great powers, the US and China, but the relationship between humans and technology, between humanity and artificial intelligence (AI).

Just one year ago, if someone had suggested you could log into a server online, have a conversation with a software application, have it write a detailed essay that might be indistinguishable from some journals, you might have been told that was a bit speculative.

Just one year ago, if you said you had an AI which could outperform many humans at advanced placement exams in the US, you might have been told that was a stretch goal.

Just one year ago, if you said software could generate photo-realistic images of scenes and events which never happened just through some text instructions written and keyed in via a keyboard, you might have been told that was some way off.

And yet, today, we have ChatGPT, GPT-4 architecture, Midjourney 5 – and that is just one year on. Now, imagine that technology developing five, 10, or 15 years from now. Just imagine.

In short, the genie is out of the bottle. What has been invented cannot be un-invented, whether it is the light bulb, the computer, the smartphone, cloud computing or AI in its current form. What has been invented cannot be un-invented. That is the world we live in – a brave new world for Singapore and Singaporeans in the generation ahead.

This means the world of SG100 will be very different from the world of SG50 just a few years ago. Some might say the world of SG100 will be as different from SG50, as SG50 was from the early days of our Independence in 1965.

Just as today, we look back and reflect on what the founding generation of Singaporeans and leaders did, the choices they made, the directions we took, in SG100, there will be another generation looking back at what we decide today and in the next few years. And they will know whether we chose well.

It is incumbent on us to make those decisions soon, given how quickly the world is changing. There is not much time. We have to move very quickly and very decisively.

I will speak first on togetherness in our society. There is an old saying from Mr Lee Kuan Yew to the effect that "all other policies would 'bend at the knees' for our water survival."

We still face existential challenges and dangers as a small country, whether it is water security, our ability to defend ourselves in an ever more hazardous world. But there can be no policy stability, no policy continuity, no ruggedness of policies to bend at the knee for other issues if as a society, we are fragmented, divided and splintered. We will be less than a dot if we are splintered.

There can be no consensus on redistribution or a social compact, regardless of what view is put forward on any side of the House or in our society. There can be no consensus without that basic idea of togetherness – a togetherness that each of us sees fellow Singaporeans as our brothers and sisters. Before we can be our brother's keeper, we have to see that fellow citizen as our brother or our sister, as the case may be.

So, I would suggest that in this new era, every policy in the Government must have one eye on the impact of governance and policy, on our cohesion and our social togetherness as a nation and as a people.

AI will pose great challenges for social togetherness and social trust. What happens when any photo or video can be a deepfake? What happens when people can no longer trust what they see online, whether on a broadcast video, a WhatsApp message, a social media platform or something that is circulating around? What happens when people feel they cannot trust what they see and hear?

You can imagine how foreign troublemakers will try to damage our society – circulating deepfakes of community incidents that never happened, deepfakes of opinion shapers or people in the news. That is the world we are going to have to deal with.

This means every policy has to keep social togetherness and social cohesion – one eye on it, sometimes both eyes, but always mindful. In a world of unnatural AI, where the unnatural AI is the new natural, we have to assume that the natural workings of society are going to be very, very different.

If you are a policymaker and you are not already thinking about how to strengthen social cohesion in this brave new world, then business-as-usual policies will actually mean the progressive weakening of our social togetherness in a world disrupted by AI and generative AI.

I use the word "togetherness" with some consideration. You can have different views, come from different backgrounds, have different ideas, different perspectives, but that togetherness is what allows us to pull together and move forward as one people, especially in times of difficulty. This means we need to double down on how people meet, face to face, in the community.

When HDB estates are designed, do the shape of blocks and neighbourhoods make it harder for people to come together when going out for work, to play, or to school? Or does the shape of estate designs make it easier for people to interact spontaneously or serendipitously?

My Clementi residents tell me that the older blocks with void decks are not quite the same as the newer blocks, which do not have void decks and therefore have fewer shared spaces for organic interaction in the same way as before. My residents feel that about the newer blocks.

When neighbourhood centres are designed and outfitted, do policymakers lean in favour of having more hawker centres and coffee shops as a way of bringing people together, even building, designing ahead of demand, or does the market get to decide after the fact?

Do our policies bring Singaporeans of different backgrounds and different journeys together throughout life, especially from young – children who have come from different starting points and different stories, but who all can learn from mixing with one another?

Because this too builds trust. When people connect, engage, come together, and learn from one another, that sharing and exchange of social capital lifts up a society. It deepens our closeness and identity as Singaporeans. And the beauty of social capital is that unlike fiscal capital, which when redistributed is a case of addition and subtraction. But when we have social capital, exchanging and sharing, it multiplies, makes our society richer, more interesting, more unique, deepens our identity as Singaporeans.

We need to make sure that mixing, that face-to-face interaction happens all the more so in an era of AI.

We also need to equip our students to compete in a world of AI. We cannot hide from it. Even if tomorrow, as some jurisdictions have talked about, we legislated against the use of ChatGPT and other technologies, that would not protect our students or our people – not when a competitor or another firm halfway around the world might be making use of AI.

We have to recognise these new and challenging realities.

So, each new technology, even as it brings new challenges, also brings opportunities. In the new world of technology, there will still be these opportunities, moving ahead.

For example, AI content creation will change as more computing power becomes available. Today, it takes time – if you key in an instruction into Stable Diffusion, DALL.E or Midjourney 5 – to create that image, that one frame. But as computing power increases, imagine if those images can be created 30 times a second. That means you now create a complete AI-generated video.

Imagine now, if you add in dialogue, sound and movement, you are basically making your own movies, your own content without Hollywood, potentially cinema-quality as well.

The next step, of course, then is monetising, marketing and creating opportunities out of that content. Because if you have a very marketable AI content that you have designed, you can sell it to the rest of the world. Generate revenue in the same way that content is generated today on social media platforms.

There will be these opportunities both in the content as well as in the backend – the AI programming, the infrastructure, the data centres, the engineering. There will be opportunities for Singapore as well, but we need to move quickly before others get there before us.

We also need to continue nurturing and deepening the life skills and human skills which AI cannot replicate. That includes in the digital world, helping our students get better at building friendships, face-to-face interactions, communicating with fellow human beings, persuading, building networks, growing social circles.

I debated this in Parliament some time back with Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong when he was Education Minister in a Parliamentary Question. These life skills are more important than ever today.

Today we already have computers studying us and what catches our attention. Whether it is Facebook, Instagram, or TikTok, there are algorithms which look at what catches the eye, what draws your attention, what makes you more likely to click or move your mouse or manipulate the computer screen. The software is already watching us even as we watch the screen. E-commerce platforms do this; the social media platforms do this too. They use it to make money, shape consumer behaviour, and study what we want.

In a world of AI, we can also leverage this to transform the education process. We already know that different students learn differently. Some students learn better by listening, speaking; they learn better through a verbal way. There are some students who prefer to learn by reading and absorbing. There are many students who learn best by doing things with their hands – building, creating, coming up with something with their hands and handiwork and craftwork.

With AI, it will be possible to customise the learning process to each student's individual skills, understanding what works best for that particular student.

This does not mean teachers will become obsolete. Instead, it means teachers can be freed up to focus on human skills, life skills, and helping prepare students for life. Life skills such as how to work as a team, how to connect with your peers, or how to grow as a person. No AI can replace this. It means educators could have more time to befriend students, understand each student's journey, be that cheerleader, that mentor, that shoulder to cry on in times of difficulty, or that person to motivate the student to grow beyond what they dreamed they could do. So, amid these challenges, many opportunities.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, five years ago, during the debate on the 2018 Budget, I had called upon this Government to make a big push towards in-house AI capabilities because even though there is a role for private sector capability and outsourcing, there is no substitute for having some of that capability in-house, within the Government.

We need to make sure our Public Service deeply understands AI and its opportunities, whether in health, whether in defence, but across the board in policymaking. Amid a world of AIs, deep fakes and generative AI creations, we need to double down in our public policy on how we bring people together, on how we bring fellow Singaporeans together for these face-to-face interactions, which will be the key bedrock foundation of our society and inoculation against deep fakes and other AI disruptions. We need to strengthen human relationships, deepen human trust and we need policy to guide that direction in a world of AI disruption, so that amid big changes in the world, Singapore and Singaporeans continue having that sense of togetherness so that we can survive and thrive in a dangerous world and continue to dream and overcome whatever the world throws at us. [Applause.]